Do Democrats Still Favor Packing the Court and Ending the Fillibuster?

[Seymour Flops]

Schumer now pleads for bi-partisanship having promised to railroad Democrat agenda through

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was looking to get rid of the filibuster of Democrats gained a majority in the Senate but now he is calling for bi-partisanship.

www.foxnews.com

Schumer and the Democrats tried to kill the filibuster in 2022 when they had 50 votes – the vice president could have broken the tie – but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to toe the Democratic party line. They eventually became Independents.

. . .

"To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith," Schumer said.

"Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power."

"So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation."

Schumer’s about face wasn’t lost on Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

What does Schumer mean by "going to extremes?" Surely, he cannot mean ending the fillibuster and packing the court. How could it only be "extreme" if Republicans do it?

No. He must mean something else. He still supports ending the fillibuster and packing the court, I'm sure.

But what else could he mean?

 

[struth]

In a sign of bipartisanship the gop should join in killing the filibuster

 

[Obiwan]

"Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power."

It sounds to me like Schumer had a "Come to Jesus moment" and realized that the Democrats' losses were the result of the citizens rejecting THEIR actions.

 

[rampart]

Schumer now pleads for bi-partisanship having promised to railroad Democrat agenda through

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was looking to get rid of the filibuster of Democrats gained a majority in the Senate but now he is calling for bi-partisanship.

www.foxnews.com

Schumer and the Democrats tried to kill the filibuster in 2022 when they had 50 votes – the vice president could have broken the tie – but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to toe the Democratic party line. They eventually became Independents.

. . .

"To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith," Schumer said.

"Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power."

"So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation."

Schumer’s about face wasn’t lost on Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

What does Schumer mean by "going to extremes?" Surely, he cannot mean ending the fillibuster and packing the court. How could it only be "extreme" if Republicans do it?

No. He must mean something else. He still supports ending the fillibuster and packing the court, I'm sure.

But what else could he mean?

dud we do those things?

your courts seem solidly ideological as/is.

i suggest you keep the filibuster. conservatives may find a reason to slow the mercurial interests of dear leader.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Schumer now pleads for bi-partisanship having promised to railroad Democrat agenda through

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was looking to get rid of the filibuster of Democrats gained a majority in the Senate but now he is calling for bi-partisanship.

www.foxnews.com

Schumer and the Democrats tried to kill the filibuster in 2022 when they had 50 votes – the vice president could have broken the tie – but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to toe the Democratic party line. They eventually became Independents.

. . .

"To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith," Schumer said.

"Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power."

"So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation."

Schumer’s about face wasn’t lost on Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

What does Schumer mean by "going to extremes?" Surely, he cannot mean ending the fillibuster and packing the court. How could it only be "extreme" if Republicans do it?

No. He must mean something else. He still supports ending the fillibuster and packing the court, I'm sure.

But what else could he mean?

FDR just phoned from the beyond...he'd like to drop this worthless subject. It didn't work out for him.

 

[1srelluc]

What concerns me about the new Senate leader is who he will assign to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Hopefully no RINOs.

 

[Moonglow]

Schumer now pleads for bi-partisanship having promised to railroad Democrat agenda through

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was looking to get rid of the filibuster of Democrats gained a majority in the Senate but now he is calling for bi-partisanship.

www.foxnews.com

Schumer and the Democrats tried to kill the filibuster in 2022 when they had 50 votes – the vice president could have broken the tie – but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to toe the Democratic party line. They eventually became Independents.

. . .

"To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith," Schumer said.

"Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power."

"So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation."

Schumer’s about face wasn’t lost on Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

What does Schumer mean by "going to extremes?" Surely, he cannot mean ending the fillibuster and packing the court. How could it only be "extreme" if Republicans do it?

No. He must mean something else. He still supports ending the fillibuster and packing the court, I'm sure.

But what else could he mean?

The GOP damn sure does.

 

[rampart]

FDR just phoned from the beyond...he'd like to drop this worthless subject. It didn't work out for him.

do republicans now believe special counsel us a thing? that they can enforce regulations of the new conservative administrative state?

we seem to have a few things for your smart guys to figure out.

 

[Blaster]

Packing SCOTUS is the dumbest thing imaginable.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

do republicans now believe special counsel us a thing? that they can enforce regulations of the new conservative administrative state?

we seem to have a few things for your smart guys to figure out.

The Special Counsel is a thing. Has been for a long time now.
I suspect they'll find out it won't be as easy to implement their new just and righteous conservative society as they believe it will be.
And bear in mind, if the worm turns again in two or four years, what's done..can be undone.

 

[struth]

do republicans now believe special counsel us a thing? that they can enforce regulations of the new conservative administrative state?

we seem to have a few things for your smart guys to figure out.

What a weird post. What are you trying to say?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Schumer now pleads for bi-partisanship having promised to railroad Democrat agenda through

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was looking to get rid of the filibuster of Democrats gained a majority in the Senate but now he is calling for bi-partisanship.

www.foxnews.com

Schumer and the Democrats tried to kill the filibuster in 2022 when they had 50 votes – the vice president could have broken the tie – but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to toe the Democratic party line. They eventually became Independents.

. . .

"To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith," Schumer said.

"Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power."

"So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation."

Schumer’s about face wasn’t lost on Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

What does Schumer mean by "going to extremes?" Surely, he cannot mean ending the fillibuster and packing the court. How could it only be "extreme" if Republicans do it?

No. He must mean something else. He still supports ending the fillibuster and packing the court, I'm sure.

But what else could he mean?

Republicans should give Dems both of these in the interest of party unity.

Give the Dems what they want.

 

[rightwinger]

Since the Republicans have already packed the court, I don’t see what they gain by opening that can of worms

I am willing to have Republicans end the filibuster because of long term benefits for Democrats

 

[ColonelAngus]

Nov. 4th Dems wanted these.

Nov. 6th they did not want these.

Weird.

 

[SweetSue92]

Schumer now pleads for bi-partisanship having promised to railroad Democrat agenda through

Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was looking to get rid of the filibuster of Democrats gained a majority in the Senate but now he is calling for bi-partisanship.

www.foxnews.com

Schumer and the Democrats tried to kill the filibuster in 2022 when they had 50 votes – the vice president could have broken the tie – but Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to toe the Democratic party line. They eventually became Independents.

. . .

"To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith," Schumer said.

"Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power."

"So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation."

Schumer’s about face wasn’t lost on Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

What does Schumer mean by "going to extremes?" Surely, he cannot mean ending the fillibuster and packing the court. How could it only be "extreme" if Republicans do it?

No. He must mean something else. He still supports ending the fillibuster and packing the court, I'm sure.

But what else could he mean?

I have been saying for years:

Your game.

Your rules.

You will hate it.

And they don't listen. Well, now they know I guess

 

[pknopp]

I'm not a Democrat but I've long supported ending the filibuster as it currently exists.

If you wish to filibuster something, rest up and put the work in.

 

[ColonelAngus]

These are great ideas, I totally agree with the Dems.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Since the Republicans have already packed the court, I don’t see what they gain by opening that can of worms

I am willing to have Republicans end the filibuster because of long term benefits for Democrats

Such as? The Senate will likely be red for the foreseeable future

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not a Democrat but I've long supported ending the filibuster as it currently exists.

If you wish to filibuster something, rest up and put the work in.

Filibuster was meant to be rarely used and you had to physically hold the floor.

It has evolved to mean you need 60 votes for even trivial legislation. Minority rule of the Senate.

Either end it or make it much harder to implement.

 

[rightwinger]

Such as? The Senate will likely be red for the foreseeable future

The Senate fluctuates depending on who has to defend the most seats.

I believe that if one party manages to win the House, Senate and White House they have earned the right to pass their agenda