But the Republicans only have 52 seats and they’re far from a unified block behind Trump, whereas the opposition is far more monolithic. And one could argue giving these people political cover is what got us here.
Forcing a the nuclear option also makes the GOP own everything. They can’t hide behind the blame game and filibusters. They’re in charge and they’re responsible.
And it allows the GOP to keep the bullshit narrative that a Supreme Court vacancy in the last year of a presidency is not something a president nominates or nominates successfully in 200 years… what?
Explain how a failed filibuster is going to change that narrative.
If you quietly accept something, some, read many, will assume that it’s true. If the Democrats don’t stand up and say again this isn’t right, the claims are are not true, then they’re just letting the GOP make shit up as they go, again.
Ok last one, then I’ve got to be done with P&R for a while, but - what? How did the filibuster have anything to do with this? AHCR didn’t even get out of the House!
No Republican Senator is going to be punished by the voters for putting Gorsuch on the bench. The Republicans can truthfully say he has bipartisan support.
Again?
Ok.
The House Republican leadership had to create a bill that would pass the Senate under reconciliation rules, and they had to do that so it couldn’t be filibustered. If not for the threat of filibuster, House Republican leadership could’ve done a number of additional things to make the bill more palatable for their members.
What, just magically? Every vote gained from the Freedom Caucus was lost by an offsetting loss from the more moderate wing.
-FTFY
(and if you thiink I exaggerate, remember that 4. was Session’s program while Attorney General in Alabama)
The GOP barely punishes their own even if they’re caught literally fucking children in a motel. I don’t think going unpunished by voters who set their bar that low is really a standard i care about.
Without reconciliation rules, there would be a lot more to put on the table.
Well I guess we’ll find out in the next couple weeks when this fabled next crack at repealing Obamacare turns up.
Just keep paying the blackmailers, yup, 'cause they’ll eventually leave you alone, right? And battered spouses? Just be “nicer” and your spouse will surely stop being a violent asshole. /s
I’m not a fan of the filibuster in general.
I understand it has some real value, but I prefer the idea of a more nimble governing body. That preference is just countered by the fact that we have the Congress we have; I don’t like THESE people being any more nimble (both sides of the aisle, but particularly Republicans). But someone will always have a “these people” to worry about, even if I don’t. While I refuse to make an equivalence between wannabe theocrats and people who want equal protections for all groups, I fully admit there are some people who find each group abhorrent and this country is a home to us all. But it’s not really even a matter of the people, but the way the system has changed over time.
My real concern is that I don’t have faith in the different parts of government serving as appropriate checks to one another. The “need” to vote party line for obviously poor policy is disgusting. The idea that the Supreme Court is somehow above it all is as bogus as the rest; it’s not that the judges vote for the party platform because it’s the party platform, but they get selected because the party thinks they will based on their beliefs first and merits often a distant second. I’d personally love to have a SCOTUS with 5 moderates, 2 liberals, and 2 conservatives forever. Please, give me that gravity to the middle. I’d really love to have legitimately more than 2 parties in Congress. And no, the “Freedom Caucus” doesn’t count, nor does the “Tea Party.” I dream of lawmakers from the same party spouting sincerely held beliefs that are different from one another, voting their conscience instead of their constituency’s beliefs and daring us in the electorate to raise our game.
But that won’t happen. It’s inefficient in marshaling power, and marshaling power is the action of politics. Therefore we’ve evolved (or devolved) to a two-party system where the only real checks and balances come after elections (if we’re wise enough to hold them accountable) instead of there being an active, internal check against overreach. That’s not to say checks never happen, but not nearly enough in my mind.
So in the end, the filibuster has served the role of a check in this two-party system. People say they will vote for something to get political cover, knowing that it would never even reach the floor because they didn’t have 60. I worry that lowering the threshold means less opportunity for cover, which I fear means more poor votes bowing to the populist memes of the day. Requiring a simple majority vote in a two party system seems mathematically dangerous to me. I don’t know where the next bottleneck to buffoonery will be, but the easier the process to passing bills becomes, the less restricting it will be.
Look, if the GOP ever decides to address actual problems with reality based solutions, even if I’m ideologically opposed, I’m all for coming to the table.
But this bullshit? This party of nihilists that believe in nothing other than enriching themselves no matter the cost to the country and planet, not to mention the useful idiots who vote them in? Fuck them. They get nothing. Let surrender politics pass into history with the Clintons and the triangulation of their traitorous DLC.
If the democrats wanted to do something, why didn’t they filibuster every god-damned thing in the senate last year until Garland got a hearing? Bitching about it now is just stupid. Entirely possible I don’t understand the procedures, but it’s not like you actually have to have a reason to filibuster.
It made more sense at the time because no one thought America was stupid enough to vote such a piece of shit into office.
Democrats had no need to filibuster under Obama, because it was understood that any legislation without Democratic support would have been vetoed.
2/3 > 6/10
Not the point. Far as I can tell they are doing more complaining about Garland now then they did when Obama was still in office and there was a point to complaining.