Don't screw around with the filibuster...

[justoffal]

There's a lot of rumbling out of DC about going nuclear in the Senate. I understand the urgency but getting rid of the filibuster is not the right way to tackle it.

This is one of those things that will always bite you in the ass later. The lazy Man's way out.

Trump's 'nuclear' demand not landing for Senate Republicans amid shutdown

Senate Republicans have long resisted the temptation of going nuclear on the filibuster, a move more often made by Senate Democrats when they controlled the upper chamber.

www.foxnews.com

Jo

 

[Blaster]

If Democrats gain Senate control again the filibuster is dead.

 

[kyzr]

There's a lot of rumbling out of DC about going nuclear in the Senate. I understand the urgency but getting rid of the filibuster is not the right way to tackle it. This is one of those things that will always bite you in the ass later. The lazy Man's way out.
Jo

Thune has to go nuclear.
The democrats will obstruct everything, so its better to have 3-years of progress than lose 3-years of progress.

If the democrats win and do changes, the Republicans can undo those changes when they get back in.

It will be dog-eat-dog going forward, no more "collegiality" in the senate, Schumer's shutdown killed it.

 

[Concerned American]

It will be dog-eat-dog going forward, no more "collegiality" in the senate, Schumer's shutdown killed it.

I don't agree with Schumer's Shutdown either, but DC has been dog eat dog since the Bork confirmation hearings and it's gotten worse every year since.

 

[task0778]

If Democrats gain Senate control again the filibuster is dead.

Maybe. Maybe not, especially if a repub is in the WH or the GOP controls the House. The last time it was Sinema and Manchin that wouldn't do it, maybe another democrat(s) will step up. IOW, it ain't a done deal that the DNP will abolish the filibuster; it's possible, I grant that and maybe even likely but we shouldn't do the dirty work for them.

Right now, gridlock is the name of the game. BUT - the chance for compromise still exists, even if it's a last minute deal that nobody likes. But that is what our kind of gov't is all about, give a little and get a little.

But when somebody ends the filibuster then any chance for compromise is forever gone. Then it becomes mob rule 50%+1, and if you're on the wrong side of that equation then you are fucked. One party gets in and immediately erases everything the other party did and then institutes their own policies. But once you change the Supreme Court from 9 justices to 13 or whatever, there's no going back from that. Once you admit Puerto Rico as the 51st state, there's no going back for that. If the democrats ever gain control of the WH and Congress and then get rid of the filibuster, they'll change the voting laws to a popular vote AND they'll allow illegals to vote. Who's ready for that?

Yeah, I don't like the status quo either, but it could be worse.

 

[toobfreak]

There's a lot of rumbling out of DC about going nuclear in the Senate. I understand the urgency but getting rid of the filibuster is not the right way to tackle it. This is one of those things that will always bite you in the ass later. The lazy Man's way out.

IMO, the Dems are trying to FORCE the GOP to do away with the filibuster just so that when they get back in power, they can then run hog wild with abusing the lack of it.

 

[MarcATL]

Trump's the one breaking people's arms to get rid of the filibuster OP, do you disagree w/him?

 

[justoffal]

IMO, the Dems are trying to FORCE the GOP to do away with the filibuster just so that when they get back in power, they can then run hog wild with abusing the lack of it.

Yep

 

[justoffal]

Trump's the one breaking people's arms to get rid of the filibuster OP, do you disagree w/him?

Yes I disagree

 

[22lcidw]

Trump's the one breaking people's arms to get rid of the filibuster OP, do you disagree w/him?

You guys are the true traitors. You told us what you will do. You smeared and destroyed a Supreme Court Judge in Breyer for his age and replaced with a younger lower IQ ghetto ho. This man should have screamed. He ended up an emasculate men in the modern era who helped to bring his own demise. The system though has kept his embarrassment nill.

 

[Blaster]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's a lot of rumbling out of DC about going nuclear in the Senate. I understand the urgency but getting rid of the filibuster is not the right way to tackle it.

This is one of those things that will always bite you in the ass later. The lazy Man's way out.

Trump's 'nuclear' demand not landing for Senate Republicans amid shutdown

Senate Republicans have long resisted the temptation of going nuclear on the filibuster, a move more often made by Senate Democrats when they controlled the upper chamber.

www.foxnews.com

Jo

Joe Manchin was the only one who stopped it last time

The Dems fired a nuke - and it fizzled

The Republicans should use the nuclear option to pass the entire CrusaderFrank wish list

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump's the one breaking people's arms to get rid of the filibuster OP, do you disagree w/him?

https://twitter.com/RepBeatty
Black Democrats hammer Manchin for backing filibuster on voting rights
JANUARY 12, 2022
IN THE NEWS

Black House Democrats on Wednesday teed off on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) for his refusal to back a change in Senate rules for the sake of strengthening federal voting protections.

Behind President Biden, a growing number of Democrats are pushing for a filibuster carve-out that would allow a pair of voting rights bills to become law — an effort that's gained steam over the past year as almost 20 Republican-led states have adopted tougher voting restrictions.

 

[justoffal]

You guys are the true traitors. You told us what you will do. You smeared and destroyed a Supreme Court Judge in Breyer for his age and replaced with a younger lower IQ ghetto ho. This man should have screamed. He ended up an emasculate men in the modern era who helped to bring his own demise. The system though has kept his embarrassment nill.

It's a bad idea to lose the filibuster....
Yes I know that the left is bloodthirsty....

 

[22lcidw]

It's a bad idea to lose the filibuster....
Yes I know that the left is bloodthirsty....

We are between a rock and a hard place.

 

[my2¢]

Majority rule in our legislature is only a problem for those that desire the continuation of our do-nothing representatives being able to sit on their butts and not be held accountable by voters in the next election.

 

[BluesLegend]

If Democrats gain Senate control again the filibuster is dead.

Democrats already tried like hell to kill it. We may as well end it and F over the Democrats biggly before they do the same to us.

 

[Independent thinker]

There's a lot of rumbling out of DC about going nuclear in the Senate. I understand the urgency but getting rid of the filibuster is not the right way to tackle it.

This is one of those things that will always bite you in the ass later. The lazy Man's way out.

Trump's 'nuclear' demand not landing for Senate Republicans amid shutdown

Senate Republicans have long resisted the temptation of going nuclear on the filibuster, a move more often made by Senate Democrats when they controlled the upper chamber.

www.foxnews.com

Jo

It was set up kind of stupidly in the first place. You need 60 votes to pass most things but with only 51 votes you can eliminate the filibuster. I'm not really understanding why we just can't get rid of the filibuster, do whatever the hell we want, and then vote to put the filibuster back in and change it so that you can't take the filibuster back away without having 60 votes instead of only needing 51.

 

[task0778]

It was set up kind of stupidly in the first place. You need 60 votes to pass most things but with only 51 votes you can eliminate the filibuster. I'm not really understanding why we just can't get rid of the filibuster, do whatever the hell we want, and then vote to put the filibuster back in and change it so that you can't take the filibuster back away without having 60 votes instead of only needing 51.

It takes 67 votes to change the rules in the Senate. So, they cannot change the filibuster rules with only 51 votes, but they can use a procedural mechanism to bypass the filibuster rules, one at a time.

Procedure to invoke the nuclear option​

On November 21, 2013, following a failed cloture vote on a nomination, the nuclear option was used, as follows:

Mr. REID. I raise a point of order that the vote on cloture under Rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the rules, the point of order is not sustained.
Mr. REID. I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays.
(48–52 vote on sustaining the decision of the chair)
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The decision of the Chair is not sustained.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. *** Under the precedent set by the Senate today, November 21, 2013, the threshold for cloture on nominations, not including those to the Supreme Court of the United States, is now a majority. That is the ruling of the Chair.

Once the presiding officer rules on the point of order, if the underlying question is nondebatable, any appeal is decided without debate. A simple majority is needed to sustain a decision of the chair. As the appeal is nondebatable, there is no supermajority requirement for cloture, as would be necessary for a proposition amending the rules. The presiding officer and the standing rule can therefore be overruled by a simple majority. This procedure establishes a new precedent that supersedes the plain text of the Standing Rules. These precedents will then be relied upon by future presiding officers in determining questions of procedure.

The procedure may, for example, override requirements of Rule XXII, the cloture rule, in order to allow a filibuster to be broken without the usual 60-vote requirement.

Nuclear option - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[WorldWatcher]

It was set up kind of stupidly in the first place. You need 60 votes to pass most things but with only 51 votes you can eliminate the filibuster. I'm not really understanding why we just can't get rid of the filibuster, do whatever the hell we want, and then vote to put the filibuster back in and change it so that you can't take the filibuster back away without having 60 votes instead of only needing 51.

Provide some specifics on HOW your request is to be implemented?

You say the GOP gets to suspend the filibuster now, but you you want the ability to make the 60 vote filibuster permeant to prevent future Congresses from suspending the filibuster for "must pass" legislation. Remember such a future Congresses "must pass" legislation could be either GOP or DEM backed.

The Constitution (Article I, Section 5) says that each chamber gets to set their rules. How does one session of Congress restrict the ability of a future Congress to change that chambers rules?

WW