Democrats Must End The Filibuster And Make The Senate Great Again

[Luckyone]

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22, the idea that a supermajority encouraged cooperation had proven deceptive:

“What at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison.” Rather than encourage cooperation, he prophesied, the effect of requiring “more than a majority” would be “to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices” of a minority to the “regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

Opinion | Joe Biden May Have Only 2 Years to Get Things Done (Published 2021)

Democrats must kill the filibuster and make the Senate great again.

www.nytimes.com

From your mouth to God's ears.

Nonetheless, the reality is different.

 

[jpn]

McConnell is forcing the Democrats' hand by threatening to filibuster the Senate organizing resolution unless the Democrats promise to not use the filibuster for the rest of the 117th Congress.

He knows that promising to not end the filibuster would destroy any ability for the Democrats to pass anything meaningful and it would hand the congress to the GOP in 2022 and the White House in 2024.

McConnell knows that the Democrats will have to reform the filibuster (e.g., make it that 41 senators have to actively oppose a bill on the floor, making them go on record of opposing popular legislation, whereas now they are basically hidden from view), or end it completely to have any chance of holding their majorities. So he wants to force their hand now before the GOP can be accused of obstructionism.

It's pass the popcorn time. This is getting really interesting...

 

[ultmd]

Interesting comment in that I wonder what you think they were elected to do?

They elected him to do what he said he was going to do. It's all in the party platform. Nothing secret.

The goal of the election was to get rid of Trump. Not even his policies, but Trump himself. Joe didn't campaign, didn't put forth policy and Dems always said the election was the anti-Trump election rather than the pro-Biden election.

LOL....literally NONE of the above is even remotely accurate. The Dems didn't say any of that. The never-Trumpers did. And, of course, that's what FoxNews was telling its viewers the Dems were saying....so I understand why you hold that misperception.

If you find any agreement with that, then you have to wonder how voters feel about kinds of things Dems have in mind and are already beginning.

I find absolutely zero agreement with everything you said, above....because I'm not a never-Trump Goper.

I'm not sure I'd assume even what Biden has done in 3 days is what most voters want or want so much they actually want it on steroids (with nothing to stop or calm any of these Dem ideas). Maybe so or maybe voters will run like hell from this stuff when given the chance, in the next election.

...and what, exactly, is it that you think Biden did in his first 3 days that was so extreme? Biden's approvals are in the +25pts range.

That said, clearly, the voters have rejected your party, consistently, for most of the last 2 decades. 7 of the last 8 presidential election have seen the Democrat win the popular vote by a large margin. So again, I think you are mistaking your opinions with those of most America voters, gbg3.

I know, after the November election. some felt Biden would have a more successful term if Dems lost those Senate seats in GA.

Nonsense....unless by "some", you mean "conservative Trump supporters like me". The ONLY people who thought that were conservatives like you.

The thinking was that, as hated as Trump was, he had some very good accomplishments

Again, pure nonsense. Few, if any, Dems hold that view. Trump left office with virtually nothing "good" as part of his legacy.

and once Covid was under control, the country would be in a very good place.

Trump's failure and incompetent leadership in this pandemic was, literally, criminal. There would be no "COVID under control" under Trump. We know now that there was NO Trump plan to get the pandemic under control. The Trump plan was herd immunity, which would translate into millions of deaths over the next few years.

Many felt the progress at the southern border was very good and what a relief it was to not have caravans of illegals anymore.

Again, nonsense. You're talking about Trump supporters, not Biden supporters.

Many felt there were some great foreign policy accomplishments.

Only conservatives like you. The rest of us viewed Trump foreign policy as an abject disaster on almost every front.

Jobs and the economy were fantastic prior to Covid and the recovery was already happening and would be a piece of cake after Covid.

Pure nonsense. Most American voters knew that Trump did NOTHING except ride the wave of the economy he inherited from Obama. That facts on that are clear. The only thing Trump did for the "economy" was juice up Wall Street markets (which is NOT the economy).

 

[ultmd]

I think many in this group felt they could get rid of Trump but keep his progress - if Congress was divided. Sort of the best of both worlds to moderates.

That's odd, because the American voters just voted to give the Democrats complete control of Congress...AND the Whitehouse. Americans voted for Dems +8M for POTUS.....+5Million votes in all House races. They don't won't Congress divided. They want Democrats to lead with their agenda.

But, now Dems have loads of control and may force/grab (by removing the filibuster, etc.) even more control. The question is, do Americans/voters truly want what Dems are selling?

Every poll says "yes". And the Democrats would have to really pull a surprise to do abuse power and precedent in Congress than the GOPers have done over the last few years. You guys CLEARLY don't mind power grabs....as long as YOUR side is in control.

I'm a conservative so my perspective is likely opposite of yours, but I'd argue Dems would have a far better chance of keeping control in 2022 if they kept the Trump accomplishments and appealed to their moderates with calm, reasoned, and moderate leadership (which was sort of the Joe Biden promise).

It never fails that, when your side loses, you call of "compromise" and "moderation", etc. But when your side is in control, you push extreme policies without ANY concern about "divisiveness", etc. So, I promise you that your "solution" for the Democrats would lead to major losses for them in the mid-terms. The people widely support the Democrats' agenda and platform, and will hold them accountable for it.

 

[jnug]

OK...so now this is getting ridiculous. Just as I predicted, McConnell is running rings around Schumer. While IDIOT Schumer is getting his knob polished on air by Rachel Maddow McConnell releases a Press Release touting the fact that Schumer does not have the votes to kill the filibuster which is in fact correct.

I had preferred that Schumer force McConnell and his caucus to cave on this organizational resolution nonsense by bringing bills to the floor that force tough votes out of McConnells little urchins. But Schumer just does not have it in him. So I think Schumer should just nip this whole organizational thing in the bud. Change the rules on the organizational resolution process such that it only takes a simple majority vote to approve the Senate organization for this session. While Schumer does not have the votes to kill the filibuster I am sure he has the votes to make it a simple majority vote for the organizational resolution. The longer this goes, the worse it will get for Schumer. Stop it now Chuckie before Mitch makes you look like a complete idiot.

Drop the hammer Chuckie. If that is all ya' got, that is what you do.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Interesting comment in that I wonder what you think they were elected to do? The goal of the election was to get rid of Trump. Not even his policies, but Trump himself. Joe didn't campaign, didn't put forth policy and Dems always said the election was the anti-Trump election rather than the pro-Biden election.
If you find any agreement with that, then you have to wonder how voters feel about kinds of things Dems have in mind and are already beginning. I'm not sure I'd assume even what Biden has done in 3 days is what most voters want or want so much they actually want it on steroids (with nothing to stop or calm any of these Dem ideas). Maybe so or maybe voters will run like hell from this stuff when given the chance, in the next election.
I know, after the November election. some felt Biden would have a more successful term if Dems lost those Senate seats in GA. The thinking was that, as hated as Trump was, he had some very good accomplishments and once Covid was under control, the country would be in a very good place. Many felt the progress at the southern border was very good and what a relief it was to not have caravans of illegals anymore. Many felt there were some great foreign policy accomplishments. Jobs and the economy were fantastic prior to Covid and the recovery was already happening and would be a piece of cake after Covid. I think many in this group felt they could get rid of Trump but keep his progress - if Congress was divided. Sort of the best of both worlds to moderates.
But, now Dems have loads of control and may force/grab (by removing the filibuster, etc.) even more control. The question is, do Americans/voters truly want what Dems are selling?
I'm a conservative so my perspective is likely opposite of yours, but I'd argue Dems would have a far better chance of keeping control in 2022 if they kept the Trump accomplishments and appealed to their moderates with calm, reasoned, and moderate leadership (which was sort of the Joe Biden promise).

Since you are a conservative I can see why you would think people actually liked what Trump was doing but didn't like him.
I can tell you everyone that I spoke to in real life outside of the internet did not think Trumps job perfe

This is simply ridiculous at this point. As Fletch so accurately pointed out up thread, the GOP just had that opportunity and very deliberately chose not to do it. As Fletch also pointed out, if Dems choose to do it - then do it. But rationalizing it by saying the GOP are guaranteed to do it at the next opportunity is simply ludicrous/ridiculous. The GOP just had that opportunity and firmly chose not to do it. They very obviously thought it the wrong thing to do, for all the reasons already discussed in this thread, by both some on the right and some on the left. Now, the very same opportunity is available to Dems. They can make the same choice the GOP did or they can blow it up.

Actually the only reason the GOP didn't do it is they had no legislation to get thru. It will probably come out in someone's memoirs that McCain took one for the team as far as the ACA other than that there were no other bills to get thru the senate that they did not have the votes for.
Just to be clear I don't think they should remove the filibuster.
I rather see 2 rule changes.
Every bill with at least 1 member from each party as a sponsor should be brought up for debate/vote and every bill that comes out of the house should be brought to the floor for debate/vote.

 

[Middle_Ground]

OK...so now this is getting ridiculous. Just as I predicted, McConnell is running rings around Schumer. While IDIOT Schumer is getting his knob polished on air by Rachel Maddow McConnell releases a Press Release touting the fact that Schumer does not have the votes to kill the filibuster which is in fact correct.

I had preferred that Schumer force McConnell and his caucus to cave on this organizational resolution nonsense by bringing bills to the floor that force tough votes out of McConnells little urchins. But Schumer just does not have it in him. So I think Schumer should just nip this whole organizational thing in the bud. Change the rules on the organizational resolution process such that it only takes a simple majority vote to approve the Senate organization for this session. While Schumer does not have the votes to kill the filibuster I am sure he has the votes to make it a simple majority vote for the organizational resolution. The longer this goes, the worse it will get for Schumer. Stop it now Chuckie before Mitch makes you look like a complete idiot.

Drop the hammer Chuckie. If that is all ya' got, that is what you do.

Didn't McConnell just agree to the 2000 agreement?

 

[Integrityrespec]

Even Right Wing David Brooks thinks Dems need to kill the filibuster, because Mitch McConnell refuses to learn from his defeat and wants to take obstructionism to a new level.
So while all arguments against such a move are worthy of consideration, McConnell leaves us with no choice.
Besides, it is guaranteed that if GOP retakes the Senate they WILL kill the filibuster and beat us over the head with it, so the only good option is to kill it, use the opportunity to help Americans and then use THAT to earn an even better majority by 2022.
Obstructionists need to be taught in the only language they understand.

'Even David Brooks agrees' Democrats should 'absolutely kill the filibuster'

Even New York Times columnist David Brooks—widely reviled over many years for his "wrongheaded and naive" brand of right-wing commentary—agreed Friday with the many progressive voices arguing that Democrats will ultimately be justified in abolishing the legislative filibuster in the U.S...

www.rawstory.com

Opinion | The Case for Biden Optimism

He’s a more transformational president than you may think.

www.nytimes.com

No fillibuster will result in "the tyranny of the majority".

 

[joluoto]

The problem is the future has a future. The GOP will return to power and Senate majority at some point. Short term gain for long term pain isn't worth it.

 

[jnug]

Didn't McConnell just agree to the 2000 agreement?

Actually, the 2020 agreement is the language that McConnell presented too Schumer save the filibuster language. While there is nothing particularly exciting about the organizing resolution and never should be and never was in any year, McConnell from the Minority Leader's desk is controlling the narrative and Schumer is letting him do it. This is both classic McConnell and unfortunately classic Schumer. One is an aggressive, active Legislator who knows how to control the narrative whether obstructing or attacking and the other is .....well......NOT.

The text of McConnell's statement even suggests that as opposed to Schumer whipping his caucus, McConnell is crossing the aisle and whipping Schumer's caucus the optics of which are flat terrible.

In other words, McConnelll is acting like the GOP retained control of the Senate and Schumer is acting like the DEM's lost the Senate, an entirely awful circumstance in this decade of Washington politics where optics appear more important than substance. Schumer has to be good at the substance and good at the optics for the good of the country and the good of his party. Unquestionably, Schumer is not off to a good start as McConnell beat him to the punch in round 1. Make no mistake, a 15 round boxing match is exactly how Mitch approaches Senate Leadership.

Schumer can make up a bunch of ground if he has a "substantive" early legislative victory and some form of Biden's Recover America Covid Relief proposal does give Schumer that opportunity. The Legislation that gets through The Hill should end up pretty close to what Biden has proposed once the GOP is through posturing. While I never expect a DEM proposal to emerge from the modern Senate unscathed, if the final Bill looks like something that would have come from a GOP controlled Senate that will be Round 2 to McConnell.

 

[joluoto]

Actually, the 2020 agreement is the language that McConnell presented too Schumer save the filibuster language. While there is nothing particularly exciting about the organizing resolution and never should be and never was in any year, McConnell from the Minority Leader's desk is controlling the narrative and Schumer is letting him do it. This is both classic McConnell and unfortunately classic Schumer. One is an aggressive, active Legislator who knows how to control the narrative whether obstructing or attacking and the other is .....well......NOT.

The text of McConnell's statement even suggests that as opposed to Schumer whipping his caucus, McConnell is crossing the aisle and whipping Schumer's caucus the optics of which are flat terrible.

In other words, McConnelll is acting like the GOP retained control of the Senate and Schumer is acting like the DEM's lost the Senate, an entirely awful circumstance in this decade of Washington politics where optics appear more important than substance. Schumer has to be good at the substance and good at the optics for the good of the country and the good of his party. Unquestionably, Schumer is not off to a good start as McConnell beat him to the punch in round 1. Make no mistake, a 15 round boxing match is exactly how Mitch approaches Senate Leadership.

Schumer can make up a bunch of ground if he has a "substantive" early legislative victory and some form of Biden's Recover America Covid Relief proposal does give Schumer that opportunity. The Legislation that gets through The Hill should end up pretty close to what Biden has proposed once the GOP is through posturing. While I never expect a DEM proposal to emerge from the modern Senate unscathed, if the final Bill looks like something that would have come from a GOP controlled Senate that will be Round 2 to McConnell.

Schumer has always been terrible though. So I wouldn't be surprised if he just let the Turtle punch him.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The problem is the future has a future. The GOP will return to power and Senate majority at some point. Short term gain for long term pain isn't worth it.

The real issue at hand is that no one actually does a real filibuster in the Senate, not for most basic legislation.
They don't have to because what's being called a filibuster is really just a "push-button".
Ever hear of Rocket Mortgage?

Push button - get mortgage.

That's how it works with the filibuster in today's plush-bottomed pansy Senate.
You just "push the button" and the "intent to filibuster" is registered and lo and behold, DOWN GOES the bill, unless sixty votes can be mustered.
They "threaten to filibuster" and then a cloture vote is recorded on the "hypothetical" filibuster.
And that's not tyranny?
Nobody had to stand up and speak at all.
No skin in the game, no sacrifice, not even any time away from family and friends, nothing.
The "hypothetical" push button lets you be home for dinner.

So whether or not we must kill the filibuster really isn't the question.
The question is, do we have the guts to restore it to its roots, to "be all we can be", so to speak.
If you intend to filibuster, here's the original model as portrayed by Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

1) If you filibuster, you have to actually filibuster.
You have to stand and deliver.
No push buttons, no "threats of filibuster", no hypotheticals.
You have to talk until you can’t talk anymore.
When you yield, debate is closed and an up or down vote is taken.
Bam, cake, done.

2) If a senator isn't present for a cloture vote, that senator’s vote counts toward cloture.
If that senator believed debate must continue, then they should have bothered to show up.

 

[joluoto]

The real issue at hand is that no one actually does a real filibuster in the Senate, not for most basic legislation.
They don't have to because what's being called a filibuster is really just a "push-button".
Ever hear of Rocket Mortgage?

Push button - get mortgage.

That's how it works with the filibuster in today's plush-bottomed pansy Senate.
You just "push the button" and the "intent to filibuster" is registered and lo and behold, DOWN GOES the bill, unless sixty votes can be mustered.
They "threaten to filibuster" and then a cloture vote is recorded on the "hypothetical" filibuster.
And that's not tyranny?
Nobody had to stand up and speak at all.
No skin in the game, no sacrifice, not even any time away from family and friends, nothing.
The "hypothetical" push button lets you be home for dinner.

So whether or not we must kill the filibuster really isn't the question.
The question is, do we have the guts to restore it to its roots, to "be all we can be", so to speak.
If you intend to filibuster, here's the original model as portrayed by Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

1) If you filibuster, you have to actually filibuster.
You have to stand and deliver.
No push buttons, no "threats of filibuster", no hypotheticals.
You have to talk until you can’t talk anymore.
When you yield, debate is closed and an up or down vote is taken.
Bam, cake, done.

2) If a senator isn't present for a cloture vote, that senator’s vote counts toward cloture.
If that senator believed debate must continue, then they should have bothered to show up.

Do we really need Strom Thurmond speaking for 24 hours straight again though (and Goldwater filling in during Thurmond's bathroom breaks)?

 

[rickc]

My concern is democrats screw around and waste this opportunity. Last time they only got 2 years and wasted it trying to compromise with Republicans. They got totally screwed. Once Mitch got control back it was over and has been until now.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Do we really need Strom Thurmond speaking for 24 hours straight again though (and Goldwater filling in during Thurmond's bathroom breaks)?

Yeah, we do.
That is how it was actually done for the better part of 225 years or more.
So yes, we really do need people who are willing to speak for 24 hours straight if need be.
If you don't want people like Thurmond, then make sure those kinds of people don't get voted into office.
By the way, in 1957 when he conducted the longest filibuster in history, he was a Democrat.
He switched in 1964.

 

[joluoto]

Yeah, we do.
That is how it was actually done for the better part of 225 years or more.
So yes, we really do need people who are willing to speak for 24 hours straight if need be.
If you don't want people like Thurmond, then make sure those kinds of people don't get voted into office.
By the way, in 1957 when he conducted the longest filibuster in history, he was a Democrat.
He switched in 1964.

Yep, he switched because he realized he had more in common with the GOP when campaigning for his friend Barry Goldwater in '64. Probably the biggest name when talking southern Democrats that switched to the GOP.

 

[joluoto]

Yeah, we do.
That is how it was actually done for the better part of 225 years or more.
So yes, we really do need people who are willing to speak for 24 hours straight if need be.
If you don't want people like Thurmond, then make sure those kinds of people don't get voted into office.
By the way, in 1957 when he conducted the longest filibuster in history, he was a Democrat.
He switched in 1964.

I am just saying it'd be very useful if there was a tool that would just stop the GOP from dismantling all social security unless they have 60 Senate seats.

 

[rickc]

What I would like to see the democrats do is:

Kill the filibuster

Reform the senate: https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/579172/

This would take control of the senate away from those rural red states and fix the electoral college at the same time. No more worries with Mitch and his kind.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am just saying it'd be very useful if there was a tool that would just stop the GOP from dismantling all social security unless they have 60 Senate seats.

Like I said, just bring back the traditional filibuster.
And if you don't want people in Congress who like to destroy Social Security, then remember to vote wisely so that people like that don't get elected.
And besides, things like Social Security can be strengthened, like for instance raising the cap, so that it doesn't go bankrupt.

That also requires electing smart lawmakers.
Sorry, but this governin lawmakin thang requires people to pay attention to who they vote for."
And that requires people who are willing to educate themselves.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Actually, the 2020 agreement is the language that McConnell presented too Schumer save the filibuster language. While there is nothing particularly exciting about the organizing resolution and never should be and never was in any year, McConnell from the Minority Leader's desk is controlling the narrative and Schumer is letting him do it. This is both classic McConnell and unfortunately classic Schumer. One is an aggressive, active Legislator who knows how to control the narrative whether obstructing or attacking and the other is .....well......NOT.

The text of McConnell's statement even suggests that as opposed to Schumer whipping his caucus, McConnell is crossing the aisle and whipping Schumer's caucus the optics of which are flat terrible.

In other words, McConnelll is acting like the GOP retained control of the Senate and Schumer is acting like the DEM's lost the Senate, an entirely awful circumstance in this decade of Washington politics where optics appear more important than substance. Schumer has to be good at the substance and good at the optics for the good of the country and the good of his party. Unquestionably, Schumer is not off to a good start as McConnell beat him to the punch in round 1. Make no mistake, a 15 round boxing match is exactly how Mitch approaches Senate Leadership.

Schumer can make up a bunch of ground if he has a "substantive" early legislative victory and some form of Biden's Recover America Covid Relief proposal does give Schumer that opportunity. The Legislation that gets through The Hill should end up pretty close to what Biden has proposed once the GOP is through posturing. While I never expect a DEM proposal to emerge from the modern Senate unscathed, if the final Bill looks like something that would have come from a GOP controlled Senate that will be Round 2 to McConnell.

I am right there with you. I argued with 2 family members about Schumer not being strong enough last night. But from what Schumer said on the Senate floor the agreement presented to McConnel was the same one as in 2000 and McConnell wanted a promise to not end the filibuster added. Schumer did not add that promise and McConnell after a week of bullshit finally just agreed to it.
I don't know what's going to happen but I do know if Dems don't get it together and get some bills to the presidents desk for him to sign they will be toast.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I am just saying it'd be very useful if there was a tool that would just stop the GOP from dismantling all social security unless they have 60 Senate seats.

I'm not worried about social security. Republicans talk a big game when they talk about dismantling SS but that's all it is...talk.
They know if they touch SS that's all she wrote. Seniors, their kids and grandkids would kick them out so fast the lawsuits wouldn't have time to dry.
Again I am against ending the filibuster simply because I think there are other rules that could be changed that might make the Senate work better.