News of the Day III

[RSchmitz]

Are we there yet?

[dannybolt]

McConnell’s intransigence may be recent in the scheme of the history of the Republic, but it has been nearly 12 years since he stated his objective of making Obama a one term president. He CAN NOT be trusted.

And 12 years is 5% of the history of the Republic. I'm not saying you trust McConnell, I'm saying that making changes with extremely long lasting consequences should be made with extreme caution and deliberation, especially since the party in power is not guaranteed to be in power forever; and especially because of short term pain. If you want to argue that not doing so could endanger the Republic, that's a separate argument. But getting rid of the filibuster because Mitch McConnell is making things difficult is not a great reason for making fundamental and long-lasting changes.

[pete]

If it allows you to make pro-democracy reforms that alter the political terrain such that you deny white supremacist fascists from ever rising to power again, it's worth it. Without hesitation. New VRA. Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship.

Keeping the status quo for a veneer of comity and stability while we continue to slowly slide toward a right wing dictatorship taking power some day soon isn't tenable.

The way you save democracy is by fuel-injecting democracy by protecting and expanding people's access to the ballot. Expand the universe of voters so they break the back of the right wing tribal fascists once and for all.

[Bolthed]

I agree. Republicans aren’t going to have the reckoning they’ve earned unless they’ve got YEARS to lick these wounds. Whatever dead-eyed Frankenstein that party has become should be blown up in a bloody civil war. If the foundations of democracy aren’t addressed pronto, they’re gonna take a chamber or two in less than 2 short years and learn nothing from Trumpism.

[RSchmitz]

The filibuster has helped safeguard the progressive agenda too, I don’t think that should be the target. There is less controversial low hanging fruit to go after

[pete]

I don't for a second believe the Republican Party that would foment an attack on the Capitol itself would have any qualms with casting aside the filibuster if it suited their ends. The fact of the matter is that if the Republicans had the ability to add millions of new Republican voters to the rolls and add new Republican seats to the Senate, they would've done it by now. But because they represent a shrinking plurality of the country, their only strategy is to suppress rather than expand the universe of voters.

[ChaseSpace]

The filibuster has helped safeguard the progressive agenda too, I don’t think that should be the target. There is less controversial low hanging fruit to go after

And while you're trying to pick that low hanging fruit the likes of Cruz, McConnell, Jordan, Hawley, and the Sedition Caucus are trying to poison the roots

[Puckhead]

Unfortunately, we have a good number of our fellow citizens that will still revel in what Biden termed "exhaustive outrage". I have two houses on my street that TODAY, have their American flags flying upside down...Let THAT sink in. As for most of us, I plan to do a better job of honoring the golden rule, and treating everyone with a measure of respect and dignity--even if they don't deserve it.
That said, we know have the power and will to move this country to a more positive place, for all of us. Let's get to work.

[Flycoon]

plan to do a better job of honoring the golden rule, and treating everyone with a measure of respect and dignity--ven if they don't deserve it.

I'm on board with that too. But it's going to be tough....

[dannybolt]

I plan to do a better job of honoring the golden rule, and treating everyone with a measure of respect and dignity--even if they don't deserve it.
That said, we know have the power and will to move this country to a more positive place, for all of us. Let's get to work.

Wise words, well said.

[RSchmitz]

I don't for a second believe the Republican Party that would foment an attack on the Capitol itself would have any qualms with casting aside the filibuster if it suited their ends. The fact of the matter is that if the Republicans had the ability to add millions of new Republican voters to the rolls and add new Republican seats to the Senate, they would've done it by now. But because they represent a shrinking plurality of the country, their only strategy is to suppress rather than expand the universe of voters.

I don't doubt they would take advantage. After all, they proved that they would when they blocked Garland and then cut through all of the red tape to ram through Barrett. So if Biden wants to add judges, seems fair. I'm also not against removing the filibuster, because it's purely obstruction, all it would take would be for them to reinstate the original provision which has been changed many times over. However, I support replacing it instead with an alternative means to create debate and an actual process which just makes it more difficult(but not impossible) for legislation to be passed by <60. That's entirely different from what is being proposed here, which is basically to twist or change as many laws as you can to screw the evil Republicans before they screw us and keep Democrats in power. That's the kind of polarizing rhetoric which is unproductive and dangerous.

After the climax of this last election cycle where our democratic processes were under attack, why not simply use that as momentum to solidify common sense reforms such as mail in voting, campaign finance reform, remove lobbysts, comprehensive immigration reform, etc.

[pete]

Most of what you're suggesting is already in HR1 as well as the John Lewis VRA. I don't believe both of those pieces of legislation can be passed without filibuster reform. A new VRA? Quite possibly. HR1? I doubt it.

[RSchmitz]

Most of what you're suggesting is already in HR1 as well as the John Lewis VRA. I don't believe both of those pieces of legislation can be passed without filibuster reform. A new VRA? Quite possibly. HR1? I doubt it.

Let's say that is required. If memory serves me right, wasn't the last reform to try and kill the filibuster stopped by....being filibustered? What would be the game plan to kill it this time?

[pete]

The filibuster only applies to legislation. It doesn't apply to rules. The Senate can choose to change its rules at any time by a majority vote.

Hence why DC and/or Puerto Rican statehood, which is not legislation because statehood is a Constitutionally described process, may only require a majority vote.

[pete]

As much as I like and agree with Biden's conciliatory tone, I also know A LOT of people in America feel like this right now...

EsNrFP3U0AIfseS?format=jpg&amp;name=900x900.jpg