task0778
Diamond Member
WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote on filibuster rules changes to advance stalled voting legislation that Democrats say is needed to protect democracy.
In a letter Monday to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate “must evolve” and will “debate and consider” the rules changes by Jan. 17, on or before Martin Luther King Jr. Day, as the Democrats seek to overcome Republican opposition to their elections law package.
“Let me be clear: January 6th was a symptom of a broader illness — an effort to delegitimize our election process," Schumer wrote, “and the Senate must advance systemic democracy reforms to repair our republic or else the events of that day will not be an aberration — they will be the new norm.”
The election and voting rights package has been stalled in the evenly-split 50-50 Senate, blocked by a Republican-led filibuster and leaving Democrats unable to mount the 60-vote threshold needed to advance it toward passage.
Democrats have been unable to agree among themselves over potential changes to the Senate rules to reduce the 60-vote hurdle, despite months of private negotiations.
Voting rights advocates warn that Republican-led states are passing election legislation and trying to install elections officials loyal to the former president, Donald Trump, in ways that could subvert future elections.
First, both sides have tried to delegitimize elections since 1990, and probably before that when they are on the losing end. So, nothing new there, but my question is whether abolishing or diminishing the filibuster is worse than the way things are now. The Senate did pass a bipartisan COVID Relief Bill this past fall, right? So, it's not like the Senate can't get anything done, they could if they wanted to but too often they don't want to for political reasons rather than what is in the nation's best interests. This effort to abolish the filibuster is not about protecting democracy, it's about protecting the democratic party. And Manchin and Sinema are correct, sooner or later the GOP will regain control of the Senate and they'll employ the same tactics and rules that the democrats want to impose now. And maybe add a plus 1.
Democracy is a messy business. You gotta find common ground and consensus on the way forward, that is after all the job of every politician, or it is supposed to be. That's how a constitutional democracy is supposed to work. The filibuster is there to limit the ability of the majority party to impose their dictates on the minority, like they do in the House of Reps. It's one thing if a party can achieve 60 seats or more in the Senate, I would call that a true mandate and in that situation the majority does indeed have the people's authority to do their will. And if they don't then they'll lose the super majority and maybe even their basic majority if they don't. BUT - when neither party has 60 votes then it should be incumbent on both parties to work towards common goals, or at least try to negotiate a deal where we get this and you get that. In other words, compromise and some cooperation. The majority party shouldn't be trying to impose their will with no concessions, and neither should the minority party obstruct everything whether they actually oppose it or not. I think we've seen both parties do both at different times, no one is without blame. I don't see the answer to that being to give total power to one side; IMHO the real answer is to through the fuckers out of office if they don't bargain in good faith with the other side. And not just the people in the majority party either. Sadly, we don't do that often enough.
But abolishing the filibuster eliminates the possibility of bipartisan agreements except under the direst of circumstances, and frankly we the people deserve better than a 51-50 majority doing whatever the hell they want. Mark my words if that happens the democratic party will pay for it in future elections. We'll be spending so much time, money, and effort undoing what the other party did when they were in power.
In a letter Monday to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate “must evolve” and will “debate and consider” the rules changes by Jan. 17, on or before Martin Luther King Jr. Day, as the Democrats seek to overcome Republican opposition to their elections law package.
“Let me be clear: January 6th was a symptom of a broader illness — an effort to delegitimize our election process," Schumer wrote, “and the Senate must advance systemic democracy reforms to repair our republic or else the events of that day will not be an aberration — they will be the new norm.”
The election and voting rights package has been stalled in the evenly-split 50-50 Senate, blocked by a Republican-led filibuster and leaving Democrats unable to mount the 60-vote threshold needed to advance it toward passage.
Democrats have been unable to agree among themselves over potential changes to the Senate rules to reduce the 60-vote hurdle, despite months of private negotiations.
Voting rights advocates warn that Republican-led states are passing election legislation and trying to install elections officials loyal to the former president, Donald Trump, in ways that could subvert future elections.
First, both sides have tried to delegitimize elections since 1990, and probably before that when they are on the losing end. So, nothing new there, but my question is whether abolishing or diminishing the filibuster is worse than the way things are now. The Senate did pass a bipartisan COVID Relief Bill this past fall, right? So, it's not like the Senate can't get anything done, they could if they wanted to but too often they don't want to for political reasons rather than what is in the nation's best interests. This effort to abolish the filibuster is not about protecting democracy, it's about protecting the democratic party. And Manchin and Sinema are correct, sooner or later the GOP will regain control of the Senate and they'll employ the same tactics and rules that the democrats want to impose now. And maybe add a plus 1.
Democracy is a messy business. You gotta find common ground and consensus on the way forward, that is after all the job of every politician, or it is supposed to be. That's how a constitutional democracy is supposed to work. The filibuster is there to limit the ability of the majority party to impose their dictates on the minority, like they do in the House of Reps. It's one thing if a party can achieve 60 seats or more in the Senate, I would call that a true mandate and in that situation the majority does indeed have the people's authority to do their will. And if they don't then they'll lose the super majority and maybe even their basic majority if they don't. BUT - when neither party has 60 votes then it should be incumbent on both parties to work towards common goals, or at least try to negotiate a deal where we get this and you get that. In other words, compromise and some cooperation. The majority party shouldn't be trying to impose their will with no concessions, and neither should the minority party obstruct everything whether they actually oppose it or not. I think we've seen both parties do both at different times, no one is without blame. I don't see the answer to that being to give total power to one side; IMHO the real answer is to through the fuckers out of office if they don't bargain in good faith with the other side. And not just the people in the majority party either. Sadly, we don't do that often enough.
But abolishing the filibuster eliminates the possibility of bipartisan agreements except under the direst of circumstances, and frankly we the people deserve better than a 51-50 majority doing whatever the hell they want. Mark my words if that happens the democratic party will pay for it in future elections. We'll be spending so much time, money, and effort undoing what the other party did when they were in power.
