Senator Manchin opens door to filibuster fix

[Lakhota]

The moderate Democrat said he wanted to make it more “painful” for Republicans to obstruct legislation.

Sen. Joe Manchin, the moderate West Virginia Democrat whose vote the party will almost surely need to pass laws this year, signaled Sunday that he may be open to reforming the filibuster, a procedural rule that requires 60 votes for many measures, effectively dooming most legislation.

On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” host Chuck Todd asked Manchin if he would be open to a “carve-out” that would allow for election-related measures ― such as the landmark voting rights bill the House passed last week ― to be passed with a simple majority of votes.

Manchin told Todd that he opposes eliminating the filibuster outright because he believes doing so would suppress the minority party’s input. However, invoking the procedure should be more “painful,” he said.

“Now, if you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk, I’m willing to look at any way we can,” Manchin said. “But I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.”

Joe Manchin Signals Openness To Filibuster Reform As Push For Abolishing It Grows

The moderate Democrat said he wanted to make it more "painful" for Republicans to obstruct legislation.

www.huffpost.com

Sounds good. The filibuster should be more "painful" - like it used to be when they had to stand there and talk. What do you think?

 

[AFrench2]

Sounds good. What do you think?-Lakhota

I think the filibuster is a hiding scheme to obstruct real progress. I think most Democrats (the older ones, Feinstein, etc) and all Republicans love it. It takes responsibility away from voting Yes/No on things. I think neither side truly wants to remove it, because then they would no longer have excuses for not doing their jobs. In short, it is part of a system, and the system is designed to slow things down and nothing more. It's a way for Old Money and those who truly control our politicians to keep things the way they are.

With that said, I think Joe Manchin is wrong. The filibuster needs to be completely removed.

PS: Feinstein hugged Lindsey Graham during Amy Coney-Barrett's confirmation. That's the kind of Democrat I don't want in my party, ever. It's just an old white rich lady who is there to do nothing but fuck me over.

 

[kyzr]

I saw the Manchin interviews. The interviewers wanted Joe to say he would vote to further limit the filibuster rules. Joe said he would not vote to further reduce the (60) vote filibuster rule. He did say that the filibuster should be more painful, but I'm not sure what Joe meant by the "more painful" comment. Chris Wallace said that years ago the filibuster guy had to keep speaking like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart.

I'm sure Joe will clarify what he meant by "painful", but he did say in no uncertain terms that the filibuster will NOT be eliminated for legislation. He wanted the laws to be more bi-partisan with more compromise.

 

[struth]

The filibuster already requires people to stand there and talk.....

 

[kyzr]

Sounds good. What do you think?-Lakhota

I think the filibuster is a hiding scheme to obstruct real progress. I think most Democrats (the older ones, Feinstein, etc) and all Republicans love it. It takes responsibility away from voting Yes/No on things. I think neither side truly wants to remove it, because then they would no longer have excuses for not doing their jobs. In short, it is part of a system, and the system is designed to slow things down and nothing more. It's a way for Old Money and those who truly control our politicians to keep things the way they are.

With that said, I think Joe Manchin is wrong. The filibuster needs to be completely removed.

PS: Feinstein hugged Lindsey Graham during Amy Coney-Barrett's confirmation. That's the kind of Democrat I don't want in my party, ever. It's just an old white rich lady who is there to do nothing but fuck me over.

Your way (no filibuster) means that the laws and EOs get ping-ponged every election cycle depending upon which party wins.
The filibuster means that the laws passed are generally agreed to by both parties.
No new laws means no radical change, which is good, congress should work slowly.
You can whine about the "old money", but its the new oligarchs that are fucking the US up with their commie "big brother" book burning, critical race "theory" bullshit.

 

[MaryAnne11]

I saw the Manchin interviews. The interviewers wanted Joe to say he would vote to further limit the filibuster rules. Joe said he would not vote to further reduce the (60) vote filibuster rule. He did say that the filibuster should be more painful, but I'm not sure what Joe meant by the "more painful" comment. Chris Wallace said that years ago the filibuster guy had to keep speaking like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart.

I'm sure Joe will clarify what he meant by "painful", but he did say in no uncertain terms that the filibuster will NOT be eliminated for legislation. He wanted the laws to be more bi-partisan with more compromise.

That is what Manchin hinted at. I watched him on a couple of shows today..

Anyone know that Schumer stayed in the Senate until most staggered off to bed? He had his 2/3rd Majority. Brought up the Merrick Garland case, passed it. Merrick will be voted on this week. You would think they learned a lesson with Van Hollen cutting the debate time from 20 to 2!

 

[Lakhota]

The filibuster already requires people to stand there and talk.....

NO, it doesn't. It used to - but not anymore.

 

[Jets]

The filibuster is just another form of obstruction. There is no need for it. Elections are supposed to have consequences.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only fix to the filibuster is to eliminate it.

The filibuster is a fundamentally anti-democratic anachronism used only to oppose the will of the people.

Indeed, the Senate is a fundamentally un-democratic institution, as intended by the Framers; the aberration of the filibuster conflicts with the Framers’ original intent for the Senate.

If Senate Republicans are in the minority – even if it’s only by one seat – they need to respect the will of the voters and allow legislation to pass reflecting the will of the voters.

 

[Crepitus]

The moderate Democrat said he wanted to make it more “painful” for Republicans to obstruct legislation.

Sen. Joe Manchin, the moderate West Virginia Democrat whose vote the party will almost surely need to pass laws this year, signaled Sunday that he may be open to reforming the filibuster, a procedural rule that requires 60 votes for many measures, effectively dooming most legislation.

On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” host Chuck Todd asked Manchin if he would be open to a “carve-out” that would allow for election-related measures ― such as the landmark voting rights bill the House passed last week ― to be passed with a simple majority of votes.

Manchin told Todd that he opposes eliminating the filibuster outright because he believes doing so would suppress the minority party’s input. However, invoking the procedure should be more “painful,” he said.

“Now, if you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk, I’m willing to look at any way we can,” Manchin said. “But I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.”

Joe Manchin Signals Openness To Filibuster Reform As Push For Abolishing It Grows

The moderate Democrat said he wanted to make it more "painful" for Republicans to obstruct legislation.

www.huffpost.com

Sounds good. The filibuster should be more "painful" - like it used to be when they had to stand there and talk. What do you think?

I suggested this a while back. Make them invest in it if they feel strongly enough. No more "I filibuster" and it's over.

 

[Crepitus]

The only fix to the filibuster is to eliminate it.

The filibuster is a fundamentally anti-democratic anachronism used only to oppose the will of the people.

Indeed, the Senate is a fundamentally un-democratic institution, as intended by the Framers; the aberration of the filibuster conflicts with the Framers’ original intent for the Senate.

If Senate Republicans are in the minority – even if it’s only by one seat – they need to respect the will of the voters and allow legislation to pass reflecting the will of the voters.

Eliminating it would be a mistake of Harry Reid like proportions.

 

[struth]

The filibuster already requires people to stand there and talk.....

NO, it doesn't. It used to - but not anymore.

No, it actually still does....that's what a filibuster is....in recent years we have actually seen it...Cruz, Paul have both done one in recent memory, both in 2013 if I recall.,

The 60 votes, avoids the possibility of a filibuster, because the 60 is for Cloture, which ends any debate.,,,and would make legislation filibuster-proof.....the Senate adopted that rule in 1917...the original rule required 2/3 of the Senate to vote for culture...the Dems lowered that, in the early 70s, when they gained 61 Senate seats, they lowered it to just 60 votes.

The Senate does't have to vote on cloture, they can simply bring a bill to the floor for a vote....and make someone filibuster it if they wish.....

​

 

[Lakhota]

The filibuster already requires people to stand there and talk.....

NO, it doesn't. It used to - but not anymore.

No, it actually still does....that's what a filibuster is....in recent years we have actually seen it...Cruz, Paul have both done one in recent memory, both in 2013 if I recall.,

The 60 votes, avoids the possibility of a filibuster, because the 60 is for Cloture, which ends any debate.,,,and would make legislation filibuster-proof.....the Senate adopted that rule in 1917...the original rule required 2/3 of the Senate to vote for culture...the Dems lowered that, in the early 70s, when they gained 61 Senate seats, they lowered it to just 60 votes.

The Senate does't have to vote on cloture, they can simply bring a bill to the floor for a vote....and make someone filibuster it if they wish.....

​

You're wrong! Do some "credible" research. The "talking" filibuster is no longer required.

Require “talking” filibusters
The filibuster is often misrepresented in popular culture. The 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington climaxes in a scene where the titular character speaks for 25 hours straight — a so-called “talking filibuster” — in order to block passage of a corrupt bill.

In reality, however, senators do not need to hold the Senate floor in order to maintain a filibuster. They simply have to withhold unanimous consent, and then they can do whatever they want with their time.

How Joe Manchin can make the filibuster "more painful" for the GOP without eliminating it

Filibuster reforms are normal, and they happen all the time.

www.vox.com

 

[struth]

The filibuster already requires people to stand there and talk.....

NO, it doesn't. It used to - but not anymore.

No, it actually still does....that's what a filibuster is....in recent years we have actually seen it...Cruz, Paul have both done one in recent memory, both in 2013 if I recall.,

The 60 votes, avoids the possibility of a filibuster, because the 60 is for Cloture, which ends any debate.,,,and would make legislation filibuster-proof.....the Senate adopted that rule in 1917...the original rule required 2/3 of the Senate to vote for culture...the Dems lowered that, in the early 70s, when they gained 61 Senate seats, they lowered it to just 60 votes.

The Senate does't have to vote on cloture, they can simply bring a bill to the floor for a vote....and make someone filibuster it if they wish.....

​

You're wrong! Do some "credible" research.

What am I wrong about? Please inform me.....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The threshold should be raised to 70-80 if a bill is so wonderful.

 

[Montrovant]

The only fix to the filibuster is to eliminate it.

The filibuster is a fundamentally anti-democratic anachronism used only to oppose the will of the people.

Indeed, the Senate is a fundamentally un-democratic institution, as intended by the Framers; the aberration of the filibuster conflicts with the Framers’ original intent for the Senate.

If Senate Republicans are in the minority – even if it’s only by one seat – they need to respect the will of the voters and allow legislation to pass reflecting the will of the voters.

Generally speaking, invoking "the will of the people" is an intellectually dishonest attempt to add authority to an argument. At best one might argue that having a majority in the Senate equates to the will of a majority of voters. Even then, it's possible for one party to have a majority in the Senate without having a majority of voters having voted for that party.

Even were that not true, you're basically advocating for representatives from a minority party to not represent their constituents when you say it is the majority party that represents the will of the people.

What Senate Republicans, and Democrats, and Independents should do is represent the people of their respective states to the best of their knowledge and ability. If you oppose having the filibuster, fine. Opposing it because it prevents "the will of the people" from being done is disingenuous nonsense.

Finally, if the Senate is fundamentally un-democratic, as you stated the Framers intended, wouldn't that make the anti-democratic filibuster a perfectly reasonable tool for such an organization of government?

 

[Lakhota]

Require “talking” filibusters

The filibuster is often misrepresented in popular culture. The 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington climaxes in a scene where the titular character speaks for 25 hours straight — a so-called “talking filibuster” — in order to block passage of a corrupt bill.

In reality, however, senators do not need to hold the Senate floor in order to maintain a filibuster. They simply have to withhold unanimous consent, and then they can do whatever they want with their time.

How Joe Manchin can make the filibuster "more painful" for the GOP without eliminating it

Filibuster reforms are normal, and they happen all the time.

www.vox.com

 

[FA_Q2]

PS: Feinstein hugged Lindsey Graham during Amy Coney-Barrett's confirmation. That's the kind of Democrat I don't want in my party, ever. It's just an old white rich lady who is there to do nothing but fuck me over.

I know, how DARE someone think that the opposing side is comprised of people that should be treated as such.

No, they are the mortal enemy and must be destroyed.
/sarcasm

You are no better than the racists thinking they are superior because the color of their skin. Your vile hatred just wears a different mask.

 

[Coyote]

Sounds good. What do you think?-Lakhota

I think the filibuster is a hiding scheme to obstruct real progress. I think most Democrats (the older ones, Feinstein, etc) and all Republicans love it. It takes responsibility away from voting Yes/No on things. I think neither side truly wants to remove it, because then they would no longer have excuses for not doing their jobs. In short, it is part of a system, and the system is designed to slow things down and nothing more. It's a way for Old Money and those who truly control our politicians to keep things the way they are.

With that said, I think Joe Manchin is wrong. The filibuster needs to be completely removed.

PS: Feinstein hugged Lindsey Graham during Amy Coney-Barrett's confirmation. That's the kind of Democrat I don't want in my party, ever. It's just an old white rich lady who is there to do nothing but fuck me over.

I disagree. It prevents one ideology from totally steamrolling the other. It forces more thoughtful legislation.

 

[Flash]

The only chance we have to protect against the Democrats taking away our Constitutional rights, completely fucking the country and raiding the treasury is the filibuster rule.

If that is gone then we are all fucked.

We sure as hell can't depend upon the Courts to protect our Liberty. The chickenshits didn't even have the courage to stop the Democrats from blatantly stealing the 2020 election.