Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
More and more pressure to get rid of the Senate Filibuster? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
By as many as possible do you mean illegals? Foreign nationals? Convicted felons? Prisoners? Minor children?
The Commish
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I find myself realizing the more people go to social media and our mainstream media for education, the further I distance myself from my position.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Looks like Biden is reversing course (again) and now supports ending the filibuster.
quick-hands
Footballguy
He follows the science.NorvilleBarnes said:
zoonation
Footballguy
no to all, with the possible exception of convicted felons. but no one was arguing against your strawman here.
Great statement by Joe Manchin on why he takes the stance he does on the Filibuster:
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1481731425950908424?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1481731425950908424|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2022%2F01%2F13%2Fjoe-manchin-twists-the-knife-a-little-bit-more-n506255
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1481731425950908424?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1481731425950908424|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fsister-toldjah%2F2022%2F01%2F13%2Fjoe-manchin-twists-the-knife-a-little-bit-more-n506255
The Commish
Footballguy
This is so dumb by both sides. Being petulant children isn't what we put you in office for. That said, the correct answer here is, and has been since forever, to make them be physically there engaged in person during the filibuster.
Boston
Footballguy
The Big Donkey
Footballguy
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Here we have a guy who was concerned during the Trump presidency about our constitutional norms and what Trump could mean to that calling for eliminating the Senate.
https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1483460191161098242
https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1483460191161098242
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Presumably he’s talking about getting rid of the Senate with a Constitutional Amendment , that would not violate norms (will also never happen but still).
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I would have to stridently disagree any effort to remove the Senate, which was part of our system since it’s inception, would be within norms. I would have never thought, and hope we never do, see the days where those type discussions are taken seriously. He also criticized the courts, it seems like an argument for more centralized and autocratic type rule.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Going through the procedures described within the Constitution to amend it seems like following norms to me.
Mile High
Footballguy
Seems like it will be easier for Democrats to keep colonization of the red states. Just take Idaho Wyoming and Montana. Low population states, cilifized the west and 6 more Senators
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Oh, yeah there’s no way that we’re ever getting rid of the Senate, I’m just saying that advocating to get rid of it does not mean someone is in favor of violating any norms.
Gopher State
Footballguy
quick-hands
Footballguy
jm192
Footballguy
"...They want to make this country into a banana republic, where if you don’t get your way, you change the rules. Are we going to let them? It’ll be a doomsday for democracy if we do.”
Chuck Schumer in 2005 on ending the Filibuster. All of sudden, he isn't getting his way and wants to change the rules. Doomsday for Democracy, some might say.
Chuck Schumer in 2005 on ending the Filibuster. All of sudden, he isn't getting his way and wants to change the rules. Doomsday for Democracy, some might say.
Last edited by a moderator:
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
So do you think he was lying then or do you think McConnell and the Republicans are lying now when they say the same thing?
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
I’d almost assuredly say Schumer was lying. McConnell warned Reid about changing filibuster rules for judicial nominees. Seems foolish for the Dems to be pushing this when the sides swing every couple of years. McConnell plays chess.ignatiusjreilly said:
“You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday started the process of invoking the nuclear option, saying he wanted to change Senate rules to prevent the minority from filibustering any nominations other than those to the Supreme Court.
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191057-mcconnell-youll-regret-this
The Commish
Footballguy
The answer is, of course, both are lying. Anyone trying to twist it so that one side is and one side isn't better stretch really well before attempting to do so. It's clear as day.ignatiusjreilly said:
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
"All process arguments are insincere, including this one." -- Michael Barone
Any attempt to play the hypocrisy gotcha game with this stuff is a waste of everyone's time. As is often the case, whatever hypocrisy one side is accusing the other of can be thrown right back in their faces. What Schumer was arguing in 2005 is what McConnell is arguing now, and vice versa. The only principle they stand for is that they should be able to get their preferred outcome. Something similar happened with Supreme Court nominations in the past few years. McConnell twisted himself into a pretzel explaining why it was OK to refuse a vote on Garland while rushing one through for Barrett, when it was pretty obvious the principle he was articulating was, "If we have the votes we can do whatever the #### we want."
With the filibuster, the principle that has been established is, "If one side has 50 votes to achieve whatever outcome it wants to achieve, it will do it." The reason we don't have filibusters on executive branch and lower-level judicial nominees is because Dems had 50 votes for that outcome. The reason we don't have them on Supreme Court nominees is because the GOP had 50 votes for that. And the reason we still have the legislative filibuster is that Dems only have 48 votes to get rid of it. If the math changes, the rules will change. But spare me any talk of actual principles.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
I can agree with this post.
There is enough hypocrisy to go around and neither side is hypocrisy-free BY FAR. I can't trust anyone, TBH.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Agreed, I wish we could somehow de-escalate it. It's why I thought both the Garland and Barrett nominations should have received votes. I thought McConnell was wrong when withholding the vote on Garland. When one side does it, the other is going to retaliate at least as far, maybe worse. If we ever get to the point the SC gets packed, the other side will pack it further the next time. If we get DC statehood, I'd argue you could see safe red states "split" into new states the next time R's have control in response to it to get back the Senate. We are heading down a very slippery slope and yes I'm critical of what is going on now with the D's proposals, but largely it's occurring because they are the ones in charge now and can make this push. I'm not saying it's been a totally one sided thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I think the best part about this approach is it makes it really easy to scroll past them and get to people who actually want to talk about the issue. They stick out like poop on freshly fallen snow
The Commish
Footballguy
And I say let them do it. I think the most healthy thing we can do is focus on lower level politics. The lower the level, the more direct impact those policies have on our day to day lives. If we can get a consensus nationally that our federal representatives are largely irrelevant to our daily lives and get them to shift focus to state/local officials, I'd consider that a win. If we could get them to acknowledge that local elections are of the utmost importance, I'd consider that victory.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
I can agree with that too, but that is today without more centralized power for the federal government, which seems to be getting a push.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/chris-sununu-governor-new-hampshire-turned-down-senate-bid-gop-senators-do-nothing
When not in power. Do nothing for the american people. When in power also do nothing for the american people. Pretty strong argument from a member on the conservative side of the aisle for removing the philibuster. Lead or get out of the way!
“They were all, for the most part, content with the speed at which they weren’t doing anything,” Sununu told the Examiner. “It was very clear that we just have to hold the line for two years.”
“OK, so I’m just going to be a roadblock for two years,” he continued. “That’s not what I do.”
Sununu said he was “bothered” not just by how the senators were fine with doing nothing, but also the fact that they apparently couldn’t explain why, if the current goal is to obstruct until the GOP potentially wins the White House in 2024, they didn’t do anything even when they did have the White House during Trump’s term.
“I said, ‘OK, so if we’re going to get stuff done if we win the White House back, why didn’t you do it in 2017 and 2018?’” Sununu recounted.
“Crickets. Yeah, crickets,” he said of the senators’ response. “They had no answer.”
It also matches Axios’ report that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) won’t release a legislative agenda for Senate Republicans before the midterms and doesn’t plan to have them actually run on anything besides, basically, “liberals bad.”
When not in power. Do nothing for the american people. When in power also do nothing for the american people. Pretty strong argument from a member on the conservative side of the aisle for removing the philibuster. Lead or get out of the way!
“They were all, for the most part, content with the speed at which they weren’t doing anything,” Sununu told the Examiner. “It was very clear that we just have to hold the line for two years.”
“OK, so I’m just going to be a roadblock for two years,” he continued. “That’s not what I do.”
Sununu said he was “bothered” not just by how the senators were fine with doing nothing, but also the fact that they apparently couldn’t explain why, if the current goal is to obstruct until the GOP potentially wins the White House in 2024, they didn’t do anything even when they did have the White House during Trump’s term.
“I said, ‘OK, so if we’re going to get stuff done if we win the White House back, why didn’t you do it in 2017 and 2018?’” Sununu recounted.
“Crickets. Yeah, crickets,” he said of the senators’ response. “They had no answer.”
It also matches Axios’ report that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) won’t release a legislative agenda for Senate Republicans before the midterms and doesn’t plan to have them actually run on anything besides, basically, “liberals bad.”
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Man, on the one hand I agree with most of what you say here. But the most important word in your post is "somehow". Because when it comes to the erosion of norms, de-escalation is almost impossible. Let's suppose McConnell had genuinely believed in the principle that Garland deserved a vote. If he had allowed the nomination to go through and the Dems proceeded to flip the Court, the base would have gone absolutely ape####. (It's also possible that, without that carrot being dangled in front of them, a lot of conservatives wouldn't have held their noses and voted for Trump that November.) Same thing if he had gone the opposite direction and refused to allow a vote on Barrett.
And if, at some future date, we're in the opposite scenario, where a Justice dies at a time where we have a Republican president and Dem Senate, even the Dems who want to be "fair" will face enormous pressure not to allow a vote. "They stole two from us, now we need to steal one back." Which is why, without consciously doing so, we've established a new norm that presidents only get to appoint Supreme Court Justices when their party controls the Senate.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
I’m not in favor of getting rid of it. I do however think a couple things.
1) Republicans will do it the first time they need it.
2) Voting rights is important.
1) Republicans will do it the first time they need it.
2) Voting rights is important.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
What I learned a long time ago about voting due to my uncle who worked for some local campaigns.
Is that candidates, parties, bills, legislation whatever side. Only say get out and vote if you voting for them or their side. If you are voting against then stay home, they don`t care.
quick-hands
Footballguy
The demo changed the rules for judges. They just tried to get rid of the filibuster.
What makes you think it's the Republicans that will attempt to change it? What are you basing that on?
The Commish
Footballguy
Are you looking for something less obvious than "because McConnel did exactly that by extending the Reid rules to include SC appointments"?
That should suffice, no?
Two sides....same coin
quick-hands
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
I think #1 is mostly just fear mongering. There is no indication other then fear or speculation this is the case.
And for #2, most things that go though the Senate are important. It’s the Senate.
Getting rid of the filibuster will only accelerate and deepen the divide in this country. If we have any hope of returning to some semblance of normalcy it’s through forced cooperation and compromise.
The Commish
Footballguy
You asked what makes us think the Republicans would do X. The answer is because theyve already done X.
I was just answering your question.
If you want to justify WHY they did it, go for it. Wasnt the question you asked.
Ill also point out putting up with "he did it first" as a legit reason is a big part of why this country is in the position it is. We dont tolerate that with our kids (at least I dont). Not sure why we'd accept it from grown adults.
You asked what makes us think the Republicans would do X. The answer is because theyve already done X.
I was just answering your question.
If you want to justify WHY they did it, go for it. Wasnt the question you asked.
Ill also point out putting up with "he did it first" as a legit reason is a big part of why this country is in the position it is. We dont tolerate that with our kids (at least I dont). Not sure why we'd accept it from grown adults.
Because we as a country fought a bloody civil war where we resolved that all people are to be treated under the law. So if one person does X and another person does X, we have established by our Contitution that they should be viewed the same. Democrats wish to go back pre-civil was and have one set of rules for them and another set of rules for us. Yes, we can fight another war over that if you wish.
The Commish
Footballguy
You're saying that we should accept "he did it first" as an excuse because we fought a civil war? I've read this comment four times trying to figure out what it has to do with what you posted and I still don't have any clue why you made this comment as a response to mine. The only thing close to a question was "We dont tolerate that with our kids (at least I dont). Not sure why we'd accept it from grown adults. " and it really wasn't one.
Though I will say, we DID fight a civil war so that all people could be treated equally. That's true. What is also true is that it took until the 1960s to see that reality in the law. It's been an incredibly slow and unnecessarily painful process that STILL isn't complete from a societal perspective even if the law reads that way. Knowing that, it's tough to read any of this as anything other than virtue signalling.
quick-hands
Footballguy
When you change the rules, you change the rules. It's why you have to actually look forward an think about what you are doing.You asked what makes us think the Republicans would do X. The answer is because theyve already done X.
I was just answering your question.
If you want to justify WHY they did it, go for it. Wasnt the question you asked.
Ill also point out putting up with "he did it first" as a legit reason is a big part of why this country is in the position it is. We dont tolerate that with our kids (at least I dont). Not sure why we'd accept it from grown adults.
You don't get to say. Well maybe we shouldn't have done that. We are gonna keep the boon we just took but we want to go back to the old rules.
I wouldn't say, he did it first. I'd say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And unfortunately biden is gonna be treated like Trump and investigated. But biden is actually a grifter and his son and brother are his bagmen.
dkp993
Footballguy
My views on the filibuster are clear and just a few posts up so I won’t repeat but in replying to this post we’ve also got to stop with the score keeping mentally as it never leads anywhere good and things will never be even or fair. Leading a life of score keeping leads to nothing but anger and bitterness, this is true both personally and politically.
The Commish
Footballguy
None of this has anything to do with your original question or the answer I gave you to it or the post you just replied to
Do you have a problem with the answer or are you just randomly changing the subject?
ETA: And I will also mention, when you point out that someone else did it too or "broke down the door", it absolutely comes across as the bold. If that's not what you meant, then what DID you mean? As I said before Reid changed the rules, then McConnell changed the rules. Two sides....same coin.
Last edited by a moderator:
quick-hands
Footballguy
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Similar threads
