What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

More and more pressure to get rid of the Senate Filibuster? (1 Viewer)

Stoneworker said:
Whether it was a "mistake" or "unintended result" or part of the original Constitution is irrelevant. The fact it's been around in some form for 200 years speaks to its enduring usefulness in governing.

Legislation will not be durable or enforceable if passed by a transient, myopic, simple majority.
Click to expand...
I made no comment about the Constitution.  It's not in the Constitution now.  It's just a "rule" at this point.  To me, the Constitution is what I reserve "time tested institution" for.  I mean, it's pretty clear the politicians don't see it as that.  They throw it to the wayside when they see fit and, as I pointed out before, it's only around because of lack of foresight.  Taking all that into account, it's been around for almost 200 years tells me it's useful when they want it to be useful.  That's about it.  

 
Psaki-Psaki mentioned in the presser that Biden prefers no abolishment to the filibuster. Given the hyper partisan state of Congress, this would  essentially leave him with two options to get anything done, neither ideal. EO or budget reconciliation (twice yearly). 
 

:sigh:

 
-jb- said:
Psaki-Psaki mentioned in the presser that Biden prefers no abolishment to the filibuster. Given the hyper partisan state of Congress, this would  essentially leave him with two options to get anything done, neither ideal. EO or budget reconciliation (twice yearly). 
 

:sigh:
Click to expand...
Reforming it isn't abolishing it.

 
Hypothetical question for Democrats:

In 2022 the Dems win three more Senate seats so they now have the votes to kill the filibuster!

But, helped by redistricting, the Republicans have taken back the House.  So even with the filibuster dead the Dems won’t be able to pass anything because it won’t get through the House.  Also, there’s a not-too-unlikely possibility that the Republicans will control the White House, House and Senate in 2024.

Under that scenario, should the Dems vote to kill the filibuster? 
 

I vote yes but I’m pretty dumb.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Hypothetical question for Democrats:

In 2022 the Dems win three more Senate seats so they now have the votes to kill the filibuster!

But, helped by redistricting, the Republicans have taken back the House.  So even with the filibuster dead the Dems won’t be able to pass anything because it won’t get through the House.  Also, there’s a not-too-unlikely possibility that the Republicans will control the White House, House and Senate in 2024.

Under that scenario, should the Dems vote to kill the filibuster? 
 

I vote yes but I’m pretty dumb.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't in that scenario.

 
I’m not as steeped in this topic as other more well informed people around here are, but I can’t see anything good coming from getting rid of it.   

 
rockaction said:
Yeah, isn't the filibuster 60-40? Am I taking pills or something?
Click to expand...
It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture when someone is filibustering.

It only takes a majority vote to change the rules of the Senate.  So if all the Democrats wanted to, they could vote right now to get rid of the filibuster.  Unfortunately they don’t quite have the votes, at least two Dem Senators have publicly stated they oppose repeal of the filibuster.  In my hypo, the Dems win enough Senate seats so that they have at least 50 votes to kill the filibuster.

 
dkp993 said:
I’m not as steeped in this topic as other more well informed people around here are, but I can’t see anything good coming from getting rid of it.   
Click to expand...
The Senate could pass some legislation.  That could be good, depending on what it is.

 
Republicans had the House and Senate from 16-18.....and they didn't remove the fillibuster. I think both sides; when they are both in power and out of power....like the idea of the fillibuster to promote a political narrative.

That being said, if D's think that the future of the R Party is less "Grand Old Party" and more "Trumplican/Q-Centric".....I'd seriously consider it.  Better to be the first one shooting than waiting for your opponent......and I don't think there's a question that the totalitarian/strong-man movement from the Trumplicans will remove the fillibuster if/when they get into power.  At this point, I can still trust OG Republicans.....I don't the Q-Trumplican a little bit.  

 
dkp993 said:
Sure it breaks up the stagnation that has set in over the past decade plus for sure, but doesn’t it create a much bigger problem in legislation changing every time the Senate flips?
Click to expand...
Well, if just the Senate flips and either the House or the White House remain in the same party it isn't easy to just flip back and forth.  Even when the same party controls all three, it isn't always easy to pass legislation, especially if there are close margins in the Senate or House.  So yes, removing the filibuster may sometimes allow the party in power to repeal a law recently passed by the other party.  But if one party loses the Senate, House, and White House in an election, maybe that's a sign that the people want the law to be repealed so I'm not sure this is such a terrible thing. 

Popular laws are hard to repeal.  There is no way the current GOP would pass Social Security or Medicaid or Medicare, but there is no momentum in the party to actually repeal any of these things even if they controlled the House, Senate and White House.  I guess I see the benefits of being able to pass needed legislation as far greater than the detriment of slightly more uncertainty about whether a particular law will last for the long term.

 
I personally hope they don't kill it. I think it's a bad decision and a horrible partisan way to govern. If Republicans win back the senate and house, the democrats will wish the filibuster was still in place. Let's be honest too. The Democratic party has used the filibuster when it suited their needs. 

I wouldn't get rid of it, but that's just me.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Well, if just the Senate flips and either the House or the White House remain in the same party it isn't easy to just flip back and forth.  Even when the same party controls all three, it isn't always easy to pass legislation, especially if there are close margins in the Senate or House.  So yes, removing the filibuster may sometimes allow the party in power to repeal a law recently passed by the other party.  But if one party loses the Senate, House, and White House in an election, maybe that's a sign that the people want the law to be repealed so I'm not sure this is such a terrible thing. 

Popular laws are hard to repeal.  There is no way the current GOP would pass Social Security or Medicaid or Medicare, but there is no momentum in the party to actually repeal any of these things even if they controlled the House, Senate and White House.  I guess I see the benefits of being able to pass needed legislation as far greater than the detriment of slightly more uncertainty about whether a particular law will last for the long term.
Click to expand...
Fair points.  I guess the fear of the “what if’s” keeps me from getting behind the idea.  But I’m also the idiot that thinks we can overcome partisanship and both sides of the isle can actually start acting like leaders and find compromise.  Clearly that ship sailed a long time ago though.....

 
joffer said:
a price on carbon is needed
Click to expand...
Yes. But what's implied in the statement I responded to is that, with only a simple majority, what we need is only the party in power's version of a carbon price.

Mitt Romney had a lot of good ideas for child care tax credit...but instead of incorporating those in a robust debate that eventually ended up in a better, more enduring law...all we got was the Democrats' version shoved down our throat in the Covid Bill.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Discussion of Romney's child care ideas...

But underappreciated in the debate is which of the policies is simpler. Romney has thrown down a gauntlet not just in proposing a major new policy to address child poverty, but in proposing a way to dramatically simplify the welfare state. Democrats would be missing a major opportunity if they were to reject Romney’s simplification measures because his overall plan isn’t generous enough for their taste.

Congress has a chance to not just debate these two options but take the best from each, and build a child benefit that’s both more generous and simpler than the current system. The result would be a huge win for low-income families, and a lasting positive legacy for the Biden administration.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22280404/mitt-romney-child-allowance-tax-credit-biden

 
Stoneworker said:
Gotta love the presumption that, because Democrats want it, therefore it is "needed."
Click to expand...
Republicans weren't able to pass any significant legislation (other than Covid relief) with 60 votes either.  I'm not saying one party's bills are "needed" and the other's aren't.  I'm saying that this country sometimes needs to pass laws and that's virtually impossible with the filibuster, no matter who controls the Senate.

 
If we're worried about the balance of power between the majority party and the minority party, I think a much better way to give some power to the minority party would be to give them a process by which they can put up bills for a vote.  Right now the minority party's priorities are ignored because the majority leader of the Senate gets to decide everything that the Senate does.  If they had the power to introduce bills on the floor, they would be able to force the majority party to take difficult votes and they might actually manage to get something they want through the Senate.  Instead of the way it is now, when the minority party's singular focus is on stopping everything the majority party wants. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
If we're worried about the balance of power between the majority party and the minority party, I think a much better way to give some power to the minority party would be to give them a process by which they can put up bills for a vote.  Right now the minority party's priorities are ignored because the majority leader of the Senate gets to decide everything that the Senate does.  If they had the power to introduce bills on the floor, they would be able to force the majority party to take difficult votes and they might actually manage to get something they want through the Senate.  Instead of the way it is now, when the minority party's singular focus is on stopping everything the majority party wants. 
Click to expand...
good post.  the leaders of both houses have too much power.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
If we're worried about the balance of power between the majority party and the minority party, I think a much better way to give some power to the minority party would be to give them a process by which they can put up bills for a vote.  Right now the minority party's priorities are ignored because the majority leader of the Senate gets to decide everything that the Senate does.  If they had the power to introduce bills on the floor, they would be able to force the majority party to take difficult votes and they might actually manage to get something they want through the Senate.  Instead of the way it is now, when the minority party's singular focus is on stopping everything the majority party wants. 
Click to expand...
Or simply have a conversation...you know, Occam's Razor and all.

“I haven’t seen an effort by our leadership to go sit down and work with them. No one's making any effort at all. They just assume it’s going to be holy warfare,” Manchin said.

 
Stoneworker said:
Or simply have a conversation...you know, Occam's Razor and all.

“I haven’t seen an effort by our leadership to go sit down and work with them. No one's making any effort at all. They just assume it’s going to be holy warfare,” Manchin said.
Click to expand...
I trust the parties to make their own determination about whether it is worth the effort to negotiate with the other party.  I don't think it always makes sense to do so.  There are certainly times when the minority party drags things along in negotiations just for the purpose of delay without any realistic hope of compromise.   I personally don't see a whole lot of value in making an effort right now but others might disagree.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Popular laws are hard to repeal. 
Click to expand...
Unpopular ones too.  Obamacare is still alive for example.  And Republicans won elections on their promise to repeal it.

I'm for reforming the filibuster in ways that makes it impossible for a minority party to de facto block all legislation from the majority.  And I'd probably prefer some of the more aggressive reforms.  But I wouldn't get rid of it entirely.

 
And Manchin is a shrewd politician.  Hewing the line between having your vote never be the reason a Dem initiative goes down while maintaining enough credibility to continue to be elected as a Dem in one of the nation's reddest states is hard.  And he's working it beautifully.

 
Killing the filibuster is worth it just to pass HR1. (Okay, Joe Manchin, replace "killing" with "reforming" if you want.)

Something that I don't think is in HR1 but should be: Restore the part of the Voting Rights Act that was struck down in Shelby County, except do it in a sensible way. Instead of saying that Wisconsin is free to make it harder for people to vote without judicial preclearance, but Virginia isn't, due to historical reasons that no longer prevail (as the provision struck down in Shelby County did), do something analogous to the 27th Amendment. The 27th Amendment says that if Congress votes itself a pay-raise, it can't take effect until after the next intervening election. That way, if voters disapprove of the pay-raise, they can vote the bums out before it takes effect. There should be a rule saying that if any state makes it harder for people to vote, the new restriction can't take effect until after the next set of statewide elections.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Obamacare may not be popular, but the Affordable Care Act is fairly popular, and its popularity is trending upward.
Click to expand...
Today it is, but it took 8 years for it to be net positive or break 50% approval.  It was under 40% for a long time, and Republicans used it as a pinata to win elections for a couple cycles.

But even then they still couldn't get rid of it.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Obamacare may not be popular, but the Affordable Care Act is fairly popular, and its popularity is trending upward.
Click to expand...
And because the ACA was crammed down through budget reconciliation...it was exposed to having the individual mandate penalty eliminated...which undermined the entire means of having it make any financial sense.

Not to mention more than a decade later still at risk of the whims of conservative/liberal court appointments.

Classic example of how laws passed with a simple majority are weak.

 
Stoneworker said:
And because the ACA was crammed down through budget reconciliation...it was exposed to having the individual mandate penalty eliminated...which undermined the entire means of having it make any financial sense.

Not to mention more than a decade later still at risk of the whims of conservative/liberal court appointments.

Classic example of how laws passed with a simple majority are weak.
Click to expand...
it's possible the people that benefitted from it don't care

 
Stoneworker said:
And thanks to Trump I can more easily escape that lousy law and not subsidize those people.  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
That there was a modicum of "complexity" in trying to escape this, it has NOTHING to do with the law itself.  Of all the laws I've paid even a little bit of attention too it is easy at the top of the "toothless" pile.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Biden supports the filibuster - as long as it's used like it was in the good old days when he worked with fellow segregationists.  :thumbup:

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think Mitch McConnel just threatened to block the Democratic agenda if Democrats take action to keep him from blocking their agenda.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I feel like McConnell’s threat loses a lot of force when you realize that under the status quo: 1) Dems won’t be able to pass any legislation through normal procedures; and 2) Dems have very few judicial vacancies to fill because Trump filled them all.  A Senate that grinds to a standstill is just about where we already are.

 
Also, a question for the FFA Parlimentarians:

McConnell has said that if Dems mess with the filibuster, Republicans won’t consent to routine motions that allow the Senate to do its business. Can Democrats also change that procedure?  Because I think one lesson we’ve learned over the last few years is that universal adherence to norms is only a good way to run a government until someone decides to disregard the norms.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Also, a question for the FFA Parlimentarians:

McConnell has said that if Dems mess with the filibuster, Republicans won’t consent to routine motions that allow the Senate to do its business. Can Democrats also change that procedure?  Because I think one lesson we’ve learned over the last few years is that universal adherence to norms is only a good way to run a government until someone decides to disregard the norms.
Click to expand...
Yep, it takes a majority vote to change the rules.  And unlike 2008-2010 it appears Dems are prepared to use it.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Also, a question for the FFA Parlimentarians:

McConnell has said that if Dems mess with the filibuster, Republicans won’t consent to routine motions that allow the Senate to do its business. Can Democrats also change that procedure?  Because I think one lesson we’ve learned over the last few years is that universal adherence to norms is only a good way to run a government until someone decides to disregard the norms.
Click to expand...
Stepping back from the partisan considerations, I think it's important to acknowledge that some senate norms are just kind of dumb.

Example: blue slips.  There's no good reason why two senators should each be granted de facto veto power over a judicial nominee just because they happen to hail from the same state.  I'm not sure there was ever a good reason for this practice, but that's especially true today -- surely nobody believes that home-state senators have any special inside knowledge about nominees that you couldn't get from three dozen other people who are all lined up to talk to the media.  I think this practice has already been abolished, which is great, but it's a nice example of weird senate rules that have some tangential connection to "collegiality" kinda-sorta, but really serve as extra veto points in a system already loaded with a ton of veto points.

I'm not informed enough about senate parliamentary procedure to know how much stuff like this is lurking out there.  And some parliamentary rule or custom that looks stupid to me at first glance may have some really important purpose that you need to live in the senate for a while to really appreciate.  But overall I think it would be better to make the senate itself marginally more majoritarian while keeping in mind that it's one chamber of a bicameral legislature in a government that has lots of baked-in checks on majoritarianism.  

 
The filibuster is like a bearing that allows a large door to turn. That large door is voting reform. 

Republicans can allow gun control, and police reform, climate change laws- in fact they can allow the entire Democratic agenda, knowing that they can always reverse it later on- it might even help them. But they can’t allow the voting reform bills. If they do, they will be a permanent minority. So this is the key to their opposition, IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
The filibuster is like a bearing that allows a large door to turn. That large door is voting reform. 

Republicans can allow gun control, and police reform, climate change laws- in fact they can allow the entire Democratic agenda, knowing that they can always reverse it later on- it might even help them. But they can’t allow the voting reform bills. If they do, they will be a permanent minority. So this is the key to their opposition, IMO. 
Click to expand...
Republicans would love voting reform.  Just not the kind the opens up the door for more cheating to occur.  Reform that creates more traceability and accountability.  A process which ensures one person one vote and not one where hundreds of thousands absentees ballots just show up.  Reform which ensures that only legal citizens vote, not reforms which allow convicted felons to vote from prison.  Democrats are for reforms where they can harvest more votes.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Republicans would love voting reform.  Just not the kind the opens up the door for more cheating to occur.  Reform that creates more traceability and accountability.  A process which ensures one person one vote and not one where hundreds of thousands absentees ballots just show up.  Reform which ensures that only legal citizens vote, not reforms which allow convicted felons to vote from prison.  Democrats are for reforms where they can harvest more votes.  
Click to expand...
Every word of this is wrong. Every word, lol. 

 
I'm amazed that every single person isn't for as many people voting as possible.  

The craven attempts by some states to marginalized some communities is mind blowing to me.

 
timschochet said:
Every word of this is wrong. Every word, lol. 
Click to expand...
Actually this is wrong.  His first sentence is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000% accurate.  You can't stick your head in the sand and ignore all the actions they are attempting take at this very moment.  Come on Tim!  That's absurd.....of course they want to reform it.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
241
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
timschochet
Democratic agenda HALTED
2 3 4
Replies
185
Views
4K
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott
timschochet
Voting restrictions and the “For the People Act”
6 7 8
Replies
380
Views
9K
John123
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top