6327

I don’t think this actually even requires an official rules change, does it? I’ve seen folks suggest such a change, but I don’t see what part of the current rules preclude such action.

It seems like the Democrats could just do this at will.

The downside here is that the Democrats works also be somewhat inconvenienced, although not as much as they could control when they call for cloture… So they could plan amongst themselves to do it at weird hours. It would require that they be awake and ready at those hours, but the filibustering party would have to do it always.

6328

It does. The current structure of cloture is due to a senate rule. That rule would need to be changed. Read about the full history of the filibuster if you really want to get insight into the slapdash jury rigged system of government we like to pretend is the end all be all of representative democracy.

I assume you are familiar with the phrase Catch 22 (and hopefully the book, since everyone should read Catch 22 at least once, at least). The filibuster is Senate Rule 22. That should give you an idea.

6329

Yes, if you can’t change the filibuster because of Manchinema, then you can’t make the Republicans actually filibuster, because that would be a change to the filibuster.

6330

Because of course there is a video about this topic.

6331

I believe cloture (i.e. a vote on a motion to close debate) requires 60 votes regardless of how many Senators are in the chamber. The requirement is “three fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn.”

6332

Right but we’re talking a rule change like 40 votes required to continue debate.

6333

One of the many problems with the current filibuster rule is that once invoked, by a single Senator, it prevents a vote on the bill until 60 Senators vote to close debate, permanently. The filibustering side does NOT have to read the phone book or anything like that in the old movies. Also, even though the filibuster is supposed to “keep debate open” it does not. Debate does not continue in most cases after a failed closure of debate vote. Although debate is “open”, since the vote is never going to happen, the Senate typically opens debates on other issues and starts the process on those issues. Senate rules allow numerous issues to be “open for debate” at the same time. Actually, my understanding is that all the many bills the GOP has filibustered this session are all still technically “open for debate” but of course they are all dead as a practical matter.

It’s that practical matter reality that is the problem here. A single senator can object to closing debate, then it takes 60 Senators to close debate and if that doesn’t happen, the bill is dead, permanently (or at least until the end of the session or until a revote on cloture occurs.)

All the rest of the grandstanding and alleged principled defense of debate and so forth is hype, outdated history and Hollywood showmanship.

6334

Listening to Biden’s speech.

He’s not the greatest speaker in the world, and he doesn’t do insults well, but I loved this line.
"He’s not just a former president of the United State, He is a defeated president of the United States, who lost by more than 7 million votes’. Go Joe Go.

6335

Yep, I heard that in the car and went, “Damn, Joe!” Great line. He’s got some good writers but sometimes it feels like he gets in the weeds a little too much.

6336

I am happy for what he said and how he said it. It gives me hope that shitgibbon will be in prison before I die. There is a focus.

6337

I loved the line about the “dagger at the throat of democracy.”

Also that he essentially called Trump a big ol’ crybaby.

6338

Ya think Biden knows that popular vote means nothing when it comes to presidential elections?

6339

Yeah, but it means a lot to Trump.

6340

Considering how many times he’s run for president, I’m guessing he has an inkling.

6341

Yes, I’m sure he does. Do you think that has anything to do with the point he was making? Do you not think the contrast between his electoral win combined with the +7 million popular margin in contrast with the former guy’s electoral college win with a -3m popular vote loss has any meaning at all in any context? Especially one where the former guy is literally questioning the legitimacy of that electoral and popular vote win?

6342

+1 Like

6343

Plus side, despite all the horseshit, that 7 million did at least translate to a thorough drubbing, as opposed to Bush/Gore or Trump/Clinton.

6344

I am sure he knew that, I do wonder if Trump knew it. But I still think it is kind of a useless argument to make about winning the presidency. Kinda like saying you raised the most money or had the most volunteers, or God was on your side or something.

6345

Perhaps he’s Trojan horsing an argument for the abolition of the electoral college. Hey, a fella can dream…

6346

Technically you are correct, which is the best kind of correct.

But do you really think the popular vote means nothing from a standpoint of principle? It certainly means something from a standpoint of popularity. From the standpoint of the election it doesn’t matter and yet it is a disconnect from democratic principles and from the concept of governing by consent of the people.

Or, given that retail politics matters, it’s a reference to Biden popularity relative to Trumps (at least on election day). Look I get that the popular vote doesn’t control the outcome of the election, due to our idiotic system, but disregarding the rest of the meaning is a very limited take IMO.