“They’re all committed to it now, because Chuck has made them take a public position. Every Democratic challenger, I’m told, running for the Senate is taking the same position,” McConnell said. “I think they fully intend to do it if they can.”
Thanks for advocating for a good reason to have democratic control of the senate
Ok, sounds great. Require an actual speaking filibuster if desired. No more procedural bullshit that enabled McConnell to appoint dozens of judges when Schumer foolishly agreed to kill the judicial filibuster.
Flip the House, hold the Senate and dump the obstructionist tool. Also the filibuster.
I don’t always side with either Republicans or Democrats. I just want good government. And I am 100% in favor of repealing the procedural filibuster. I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation, but it should not exist as a way to make sure any and every contentious legislation requires 60 votes.
If someone feels that strongly about something, let them get up there and read the phone book into the record for six hours.
I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation
What might be bad for you might be good for someone else.
I agree with getting rid of the procedural filibuster. I suspect the reason it exists in the first place is because Senators are getting old and don’t want to actually do it.
So, for good and bad, make them actually stand and deliver. If they feel so strongly that a bill needs to be killed, then let them fucking earn it.
It was supposedly created in the 70s because Senators were gumming up Senate business trying to grandstans for the TV using filibusters.
Personally, I think that’s not a bad thing. Make Senators want to stand on a podium and give an impassioned speech about their beliefs, like they did in Athens.
I agree.
I think the filibuster is vitally important as a last-ditch way to stop really bad laws. But there SHOULD be a high cost to using it. It SHOULD gum up the works. Because if it doesn’t, then it becomes status quo that getting something through the Senate takes 60 votes instead of 50 because the losing party will always filibuster. That’s not a good way to run things.
That would be more in line with the actual American tradition.
But personally, I would recommend to only allow filibusters in the House, which has a more proportional representation, and to not allow it in the Senate, which has the least proportional representation, even less than the electoral college.
I say abolish the senate. The senate is there because we can’t trust the people to fend off populism that prioritizes their whims over reasoned governance. In practice, though, senators inject their unreasoned, populist, ideas into government.
God, wouldn’t that be amazing? Things actually getting done instead of our legislators sitting with their thumb up their asses.
Well, less of them sitting with their thumb up their asses.
New rule. Every politician needs a heat signature based gps monitored butt plug inside them at all times.
That way their thumbs are always free.
It worked both ways though. But in the end, did it actually do much? The times I remember when fill buster was used ultimately the majority still managed to pass the legislation.
I think what would be better is that when there’s a stalemate it would trigger a new election like it is done in some countries.
The times I remember when fill buster was used ultimately the majority still managed to pass the legislation.
That’s because if you know the opposition is serious about blocking a bill via filibuster, you won’t propose it because it doesn’t have enough support.
Don’t tempt me with a good time
Exactly! End another remnant of the North placating the South to get them to sign the Constitution
There’s nothing in the constitution about the filibuster. It’s just a Senate rule and the current version (where you don’t have to make long speeches in an ultimately doomed attempt to block legislation with majority support) dates to the 1970’s. They adopted it because in the TV era, Senators were filibustering just to get on the national news and make a name for themselves.
It’s just tradition at this point. And tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.
Also: we know Republicans don’t give a single flying fuck about tradition when the shoe is on the other foot and it’s getting in the way of their power grabs. The Supreme Court would be very different if they actually cared about respecting traditions in government (amongst many other things)
The issue with the filibuster,now, is that it’s too easy. It needs to be hard like the old days.
Ironically, because it’s so easy we actually don’t even see filibusters often anymore. It’s usually the threat of a filibuster that stops legislation in its tracks. If it was harder, where you stood for days, then it might not actually stop legislation. At least it would be brought to force the issue.
You should have to earn it.
I’m sure the geriatric core of our Congress will thrilled to have to stand for hours to prove their points.
The real problem with the filibuster, in my opinion, is it shields senators from taking a public position. The most extreme senator from Idaho can filibuster the “feed the children” act which prevents a senator from Georgia from having to vote no.
Need to put in requirements for these lazy bums. They are supposed to be civil servants acting on our behalfs. We should demand attendance, votes on all measures, and at least a brief summary as to why our congressman/senator voted the way they did. If it doesn’t line up with what we want. GTFO
I respectfully disagree for the reason you stated at the end. Grueling filibusters are ableist - they’re unfair to representatives with disabilities and their constituents.
Congress is not convincing each other of anything. They can make their point concisely for the C-SPAN viewers. Filibusters are a complete waste of time.
Say goodbye to the next FDR if you demand standing.
You aren’t wrong but…
Can you imagine the spectacle of an ancient senator literally taking a stand for something he/she believes in?
That’d be pretty powerful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Speech_(Sanders_book)
Bernie did it in 2010 for 8 and a half straight hours.
How many Bernies are we missing out on because they’re not particularly healthy like he is?
Sure but I don’t care about spectacle, I just want fair voting. It would be better to replace them entirely with liquid democracy and leave all discussion to the people.
Not an actual filibuster - but Pelosi’s record setting 8h+ speech for children of undocumented immigrants was super impressive. (Doesn’t make up for other things, but gotta give credit when credit is due.)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-fake-filibuster-record-house-floor-dreamers-daca/
I think it should require difficulty but allow for reasonable accommodation. Wheelchair using representatives shouldn’t need to stand but should need to speak and remain awake on the floor. Really just run it past the ADA tests
that’s the point you aren’t supposed to be able to do it no one can any olympian jacked mf will eventually pass out and then you can hold the vote, that is literally the point the filibuster is supposed to kill the person doing it
Interesting point but name 1 senator with a disability that prevents them from doing an old school filibuster. And they are American citizens subject to laws like the rest of us. If they need an accommodation they can apply for one through the ADA
I’m not familiar with their disabilities because the policy we have right now doesn’t force them to get ADA accommodation. I’m arguing that we should eliminate the filibuster entirely (and not introduce physical challenge filibusters) so physical fitness doesn’t become a problem.
What’s “sidecar” in this context?
Sidecar was an autocorrect. It’s fixed now.
Physical fitness is already an issue. That’s why we have 90 year old senators out of touch with their constituents.
The reason the filibuster is important is because it prevents 51% of the country from deciding for 100% of the people. In order to steamroll something through there must be a supermajority. The old school filibuster works because if 1 party truly wants to stop something they must fight for it. Not send an email and the bill gets immediately killed. If a senator can not physically stand for a few hours they don’t need to be there.
Again I understand your point about being ableist however the key point when dealing with accommodations is that the person must be able to perform the job when given a REASONABLE accommodation. Fucking the entire country because 1 senator can’t walk makes no sense and imo is not reasonable.
What changed to make them easier?
Previously they had to actually talk for so long that nobody could vote on the bill. Now they just send an email, like, “I fillibuster this,” and that is that.
…what? Why would they ruin it like that?
The filibuster has never really been a thought out and considered rule of the senate so much as a fluke of debate rules. It’s basically just a loop hole noone has wanted to close since the first senate. Noone’s made it easier so much as debate rules have streamlined and the filibuster along with them.
I would hope so, or at the very least go back to ye olden days of “You want a filibuster? Get your ass up there and hold the floor…”
McConnell: <awkward turtle noises>
Imagine him croaking from exhaustion because he has to actually get up there and stand for hours on end. A man can dream…
Tuning into CSPAN like people tune in to NASCAR races to see if anyone’s going to die.
He’s just do a mental freeze and his handlers will just forget to poke him every now and then.
If he freezes up too long, the filibuster fails. I would pop popcorn for that.
If it were anyone other than him, literally dropping dead in Congress because of the passion of your speech would be one of the most based things a politician could ever do.
But with Mitch you know he’d keel over arguing about how school kids don’t actually need food.
This.
I think people tend to think about doing things while they’re in control that fuck the other party, often forgetting that - at some point - power is going to flip and they’ll be the underdogs. That said, Republicans tend to abuse these procedural instruments more.
But you have the right answer: the filibuster can be useful, if it’s not easy to use and requires true dedication. Right now, it’s just a spike strip (mostly) conservatives throw down whenever they want to throw a tantrum.
It’s not enough though, we need something more, or else if the GOP ever retakes control of both houses and the presidency, it will be just as easy for them to undo the laws that get passed now.
Something more, being something like https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review
Pleeeease, don’t threaten us with a good time.
Seriously, we don’t need a extra layer of inaction on top of a government already designed to move slowly. That’s the whole point of having three branches of government, you already have to compromise even without the filibuster unless you sweep (and at this point a sweep is well deserved!).
Although I guess I’m ok with the talking version. It’d be fun to watch those old assholes suffer an all nighter speaking non stop. Wouldn’t ever pull it off.
Oh no Mitch, you mean you’ll actually have to do your job instead of sending Ted Cruz out to read Green Eggs and Ham? I feel so bad for you.
Filibusting senators don’t even do that anymore. All the senator has to do is send an email saying that they will filibust.
Hope so. I want to watch Mitch’s legacy get destroyed as much as possible.
Don’t worry, he’ll go down in history as “The hypocrite who screwed over Barrack Obama and Merrick Garland, and set the country back decades in social justice.”
So… a champion of conservatism,then.
Yes, but I like to think that in a few decades our vision will be a little clearer, and we’ll see this dirtdirtbag for who he really was.
Idk, maybe that’s wishful thinking.
Just once, I wish the Dem leadership would be anywhere near as based as Republican demagogues always pretend they are 😮💨
Sounds good to me. Also add DC and Puerto Rico as states and then we will never see another Republican in the white house again.
Great, PR would benefit greatly from politicians needing to campaign there. Get some of the Iowa corn subsidies that will soon be freed up now that Iowa is a solid red
So afraid of majority rule. They put rules in place to stop it.
Republicans are just waiting for the opportunity to do it themselves. They literally do not care. They just like the idea of the democrats doing it so they can sqwak about decorum.
Nice to have some reasons to vote for them instead of just voting against nakedly racist authoritarianism.
Fucking die already. Russian stooge.
