Removing the Senate filibuster. I do not know if this is a good idea or not.

[shockey80]

I would love it when Democrats controlled the white house and congress. It would be a holy hell nightmare if the Republicans gained complete control.

I know one thing, if the Democrats gain total control they cannot allow Moscow Mitch to do what he did with Obama. They set the filibuster record when Obama was president. Republicans filibustered some of their own ideas because Obama liked their idea. That's some fucked up shit right there. They went fanatical and ruined the purpose of the filibuster.

When the Democrats gain complete control, the Republicans , Moscow Mitch, may leave them no choice but to remove the filibuster. Perhaps Biden will warn them, work with me or we will remove the filibuster and we will shove every progressive idea down your throats.

As Maddow says, Watch this space.

[SoonerPride]

1. Add two states, MFA, expand SCOTUS

If they filibuster then do away with it

They can’t take back states.

[wryter2000]

2. I think they have to get rid of it

The country is in such a mess now, only huge fixes will save us. The Republicans won't go along with that. They might do a repeat of what they did to Obama.

I'd be in favor of getting rid of the filibuster and then re-instate it two years later if things turn around. If the Republicans own the Senate, they can get rid of it whenever they want.

[dem4decades]

3. Drop the 60 rule. Add 2 states, a few SC Justices and a bunch of Judges.

[pandr32]

14. Sounds good to me

[marble falls]

4. Bring it back to what it was in the thirties. Filibusters have worked out in our favor, too.

A real filibuster where one guy takes the stand and battles it out, not what they call a filibuster these days - threatening a filibuster.

[Mariana]

7. The current filibuster rules have been in place since 1975, I believe.

Clearly it's much too flawed to leave in place in its current form. It's way too easy, and the Republicans have demonstrated over and over and over again that they will not use it in good faith. It should be hard to block legislation that the majority want.

[marble falls]

9. That why I said take it back to the thirties.

[Sherman A1]

24. Agreed

[Midnight Writer]

26. Agreed. The filibuster used to be a delay strategy, not an automatic killing of a bill.

[uponit7771]

5. Democrats can remove it then put it back with a 2/3 vote

... needed to overcome it

[RDANGELO]

6. I truly believe that, in the long run, we would be better off without it.

I'ts one of the reasons we are behind the rest of the world in health care. Because of it, programs don't get passed, and we don't get to find out what works and what doesn't, and we don't get the steady development of programs over time to make them more efficient.

[DrToast]

8. I'm in favor of more democracy, not less

Get rid of it.

[marble falls]

10. It can be used to promte public health care, too.

[PSPS]

11. Filibuster equals minority rule. Scuttle it.

[pandr32]

15. Well put

[kentuck]

12. Republicans don't play the game the way Democrats do.

Democrats should adapt to the partisan times. They should do whatever needs to be done to correct the over-reaches of McConnell and the Republicans. Fix it and then negotiate an agreement before the next election. Offer the Republicans a compromise before the next election in 2024.

[Wellstone ruled]

25. It is all about writing the Rules for Passage

of any bill. Moscow Mitch and John Thune are writing the rules as to only need a 50 + 1 to pass any bills or on the ones that require 60 votes,they use a voice vote.

[kentuck]

29. They do not want the Democrats to go to straight majority if they win in November.

They want to keep the 60-vote filibuster rule in place.

Not like Mitch did with the rule for Supreme Court Justices.

[Wellstone ruled]

30. As we have learned in the last six years,

Moscow Mitch's word has zero value. Doubt me,ask Harry Reid or any of his Aides. They all have the Knife scares in their backs to prove it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. It's the only way forward, to break the gridlock- ram through legislation to help the people

If Dems can ram through enough legislation that truly benefits most Americans, voters will hold them accountable and re-elect them.

The GOP would not be able to mock the “Do-nothing” Dems, or blame the swamp and gridlock for lack of change/improvement/progress.

If the GOP ever gets the WH and both houses of Congress again, they can ram through their legislation, and be held accountable for the damage/improvements they make, without any excuses, the credit or blame will be squarely on them.

That’s why Biden, Pelosi and the new Senate majority will only have 12-18 months Max after Inauguration Day to ram through filibuster-free legislation to create substantive change and improvement in healthcare, the environment, Income inequality, voting rights, and all other social justice matters. After about March 2022, folks will be focused on the midterms, and Some their spines may turn a bit gelatinous, so we need substantive change that tangibly improves people’s lives before then.

It’s a once in a century opportunity (the New Deal 87 years ago was the last one), and we must not squander it.

[RainCaster]

16. Amen!

I like your thinking

[Demsrule86]

17. It has to happen or we accomplish nothing. And consider anytime the GOP had

the votes to do what they want, they got rid of the filibuster...often they did not have 51 votes or the vote was tantamount to political suicide. The Senate has to be accountable. The filibuster makes them immune to the voters wishes...also with the house gerrymandered and likely to stay that way...everything is off balance. At least with the gerrymander one branch will be held accountable.

[Progressive dog]

18. The filibuster was ended for confirming appointments..

It is time to end it for legislation.

[Quemado]

19. Go one step further - abolish the Senate.

It's an institution that was created to give more political power to slave states.

[paleotn]

20. Shove every progressive idea down their throats.

Obama learned a painful lesson. Lets hope Joe remembers. You cannot work with those people. You can't. They only do whats good for themselves. If that corresponds with what's good for the country, so be it. If not, they couldn't care less. Even if that means selling out to a foreign adversary, they do it without hesitation. I'll repeat it one more time for clarity....You...cannot...work....with....those...people.

Thus...blow up the filibuster. Like the ACA, once Americans get use to certain programs, it's damn near impossible to take them away.

[NurseJackie]

21. If we can change it, couldn't we also change it back?

[DVRacer]

22. No!

Harry Reid has even said that doing away with it was a bad idea on judicial nominees. Long term with the Senate it will bite us.

[bullimiami]

23. Think on this

During this time that R had the Senate and Trump.
What impact have they allowed the filibuster to have on their agenda?
Answer is none.
Whenever they wanted something done they changed the rules.

During D admins how often did they obstruct using the fillibuster?
Answer is whenever they could.

So you can play it 2 ways.
Dump the fillibuster and just put it out front.
Or pretend that it still matters and just change rules as you want to push your agenda through.

[Jeebo]

27. There's another option nobody ever mentions.

Don't blow up the filibuster, instead just allocate a limited number of filibusters to each party, let's say four per two-year legislative session, like time-outs in a football game.

It used to be, 20 or 30 years ago, that the filibuster was used sparingly, by both parties. And then Republicons started relentlessly filibustering EVERYTHING Democrats tried to do. That's what's got to stop. It's okay for both parties to have the filibuster to stop things they find particularly objectionable, as long as it's used sparingly, the way it used to be. And it remains okay, if the Senate rules are changed so that it's now a requirement that the filibuster be used only occasionally.

Another option, of course, is one that has been mentioned, that if somebody is going to resort to filibustering, s/he has to actually DO it. Like Jimmy Stewart or Wendy Davis. Stand there and talk non-stop and refuse to yield the floor. If there's going to be no limit on use of the filibuster, they should be required to actually DO IT.

-- Ron

[Volaris]

28. The only way I would approve of removing it,

Is to then implement such a useful progressive agenda that all Americans will benefit so much from it, that the republican naysayers will not be re-elected to a congressional majority for at least 20 years.

In other words, if we half ass this, we give them a window to undo those forward steps.

It's time for us to FUCKING MEAN IT, or it wont work.