Serious question: What is the argument against killing the filibuster? nt

[Atticus]

[mr_lebowski]

1. We might need it later? (nt)

[Atticus]

5. Couldn't the same be said about machine guns? If we could trust everyone to be as patriotic,

tolerant and decent as WE are---( long pause for introspection )---there would be no problem with filibusters or Uzis ( though I don't know why we'd need either ).

[ret5hd]

2. Our supply of dry powder MUST be protected, even at the cost of...

never using said powder.

[KatyMan]

25. so we let the enemy use

our dry powder to blow us up?

[bullimiami]

3. i think there is no good argument. only tradition.

[Hortensis]

15. Far from. It's a double-edged sword on an uncontrollable handle.

Big arguments for getting rid of it compete with expected huge problems from doing it. All arguments have tended to come down to what would be expected to happen each time it became possible for us to do it. I.e., could we afford to do it now or would it be disastrous, both now and in its effect on the next election?

[Hortensis]

20. Far from. It's a double-edged sword on an uncontrollable handle.

Big arguments for getting rid of it, because it's intensely antidemocratic, compete with expected huge problems from doing it. All arguments have tended to come down to what would be expected to happen each time it became possible for us to do it. I.e., could we afford to do it now or would it be disastrous, both now and in its effect on the next election?

In this era, with the future of our nation hanging on razor-thin electoral margins.... Republicans in congress would have overthrown our democracy and established an authoritarian state if more knew they could get away with it, you know.

[TuskMoar]

4. Republicans Might Win the Senate in the Future?

Keeping it as a norm might be in the democrats favor if they find themselves in the minority.

I am not personally for this. I want to end it. However, this is the only argument I have heard that holds at least some weight with me.

[OnDoutside]

6. For me, it's that as soon as Democrats do it, they have to be

prepared to implement a massive transformative, legislative agenda, so that change is made and obviously made for the betterment of people's lives. Even Republican voters lives. By the time November 2022 comes along, people might buy into the change that Democrats offer.

[Atticus]

7. As Myron Cohen might have said: "Well! If you're going to throw LOGIC at me------!"

(I agree with your thought. )

[Dream Girl]

11. I agree. Lose the filibuster and then go big.

[OnDoutside]

17. Yes, you'd only get one shot at it, so if they're not prepared for that

massive effort, then probably not worth taking that big step.

On the positive side, Pelosi has a big pipeline of Bills ready to go, which they can run on in 2022. With that, and a very favourable Senate map, they may be better off not getting rid of the filibuster now. Of course, if McConnell acts the asshole and blocks everything, as he did with Obama, then revisit the filibuster. I certainly wouldn't be taking it off the table, as you can then be certain McConnell WOULD block everything.

[Volaris]

16. I agree with this, and I'm not sure it can be done piecemeal..

Because everything is connected to everything else.

Infrastructure Week might be worth doing without Green New Deal, but we will get hammered for either/both in the off-cycle;

same with Expanded ACA/PublicOption and 15$/hr min wage/a budget that isnt insanely shifted to the wealthy and their corporate persons...they're CONNECTED as means to an end.

Everybody's got their piece that they want done, that's understandable. The question to ask I think is, how many cuts to the pieces can be made, before The Whole isnt worth doing?

And if we really want it done, we will jam red states so full of Green New Deal projects (at the beginning) that the idjits that live there wont be able to help noticing how useful and profitable it is.

If we REALLY want Public Option, we will START by claiming its ONLY for dealing with opioid addiction, and put a free rehab center in every damn county that voted for trump twice.

If we REALLY want at least part of the economy that works for We the People instead of wall street, we will throw a hundred million dollars seed money into opening a citizen owned federal credit union, and use Fanny and Freddy to start making simple-interest home loans to qualified buyers, with a branch office in every post office in america.

This is OUR nation. This is OUR economy; wall street owns NOTHING that WE DONT ALLOW. Oh, and being a communist IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW, and sweeping democratic policy measures are NOT un-american.

[OnDoutside]

19. It is all connected, yes, and I would be surprised if any of that

is attempted, or the majority of it before Jan 2023. From what I have heard so far, Covid, impeachment and DACA are the big topics of the first 100 days. DACA would be an inspired idea, as not only does it have majority support in the country but it should increase the amount of Democratic voters.

[Volaris]

21. Agree on all that. But just because were doing that first, doesnt mean ignoring

plans for how to efficiently implement the Second.

WE CAN walk and fucking chew at the same time, even if mitch would rather do neither.

[OnDoutside]

23. 100% agree. My only concern is that they choose wisely which to

push in order. DACA might be more gettable in that I assume they just need a simple majority, though I can imagine the RW pressure put on the likes of Manchin.

[Volaris]

26. In all fairness to the counter-argument, I'm actually happy just now about

The prospect of earmarks making a return to the legislative process (if that is to be believed)

It makes it much easier for the Manchins of the world to actually do what their party platform asks of them.. even IF the tradeoff is a legalized bribe of sorts.. it's how we keep them on board.

To this day, pretty sure nobody's happy about the Cornhusker Kickback except half the people in Nebraska...but it got the damn bill passed is all I'm sayin.

[OnDoutside]

27. Yes, I made that exact point at time Manchin came out and said

that he should get whatever he demands...it's going to benefit a Democrat anyway.

[Hortensis]

22. OnDout, with a one-vote majority and a number of Democratic senators

elected from red states, voting for a massive, transformative agenda that would cost them all their seats is not going to happen.

And if it did, it could hand the nation to to the control of a very corrupt, increasingly white nationalist authoritarian party. Trump MAY be gone, the rest there before him are still there. The stakes are enormous.

A for transformative legislation, the ACA has very big support now, but in 2010 passing it threw the entire nation tragically to the Republicans for the next decade, sweeping Republicans into office and Democrats out. Even a lot of people on the left voted right, influenced by a blizzard of hostile propaganda -- that's how thrilled everyone was at this great advance.

Can't just "fix" stupid on this scale. Have to predict and find a way to save people from themselves.

[OnDoutside]

24. 100% agree, I was just saying that if they were to go that route, they

better be prepared to go big, because they'd only have one shot at it.

As for the ACA, there's a bipartisan Bill from the last Congress, ready to go, which will fix a lot of the ACA problems, but of course McConnell never allowed it get on to the Senate floor for a vote. Bring that back, and push it through.

[jalan48]

8. It allows Senators to vote for what their constituents want but what their big donors oppose

because they know the bill will never pass the filibuster threshold.

[Atticus]

9. But, doesn't that kind of childish cowardice make most people want to blow chunks? nt

[jalan48]

10. Yes, but it allows the Senator the opportunity to look like he/she is doing the right thing.

[brush]

12. We need to get rid of it as soon as we can. It's a relic of slavery just like the EC.

It's not in the Constitution. Racist senator John C. Calhoun was the driver behind it back in the 1800s as it benefited the southern states.

Now it's just tradition and there is no reason that the Senate can't have a simple majority to pass bills.

Get rid of it.

[Atticus]

13. We agree. I just wondered if I had overlooked something that makes sense. So far, "No". nt

[DetlefK]

14. The filibuster is a quick&dirty incomplete fix for an inherently defective electoral system.

As a whole, the electoral system of the US puts way too much emphasis on the political power of states vs the political power of the people.

The purpose of the filibuster is to prevent a majority of states and minority of people from exercising a tyranny over a minority of states and majority of people... which is a problem that wouldn't exist if someone could be arsed to update the electoral system of the US to the 20th century. (Yes, I said 20th, not 21st.)

For example:
Change the electoral system away from winner-take-all. That would allow smaller parties to exist and that would drastically diversify the political landscape. The seats of Congress would be more spread out, not over 2 parties, but over 4, 5, 6 parties. That would AUTOMATICALLY make it next to impossible for single party to reach 51% of seats in either House or Senate.

For example:
Adapt the number of Senators to the number of people living in their state. For example in Germany's version of the Senate, the Bundesrat, the states have 3 to 6 representatives, depending on their population. That would AUTOMATICALLY prevent that a group of states representing only a minority of people could hold outsized power.

[joshcryer]

18. The Senators would actually have to speak on the floor...

...for hours and hours on end.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with ending the virtual filibuster.

Simply saying "I filibuster" so that other orders of business can be done, is not enough. It needs to be done away with just so our civic institutions can exist again.

The founding fathers would be ashamed of the current crop of Senators who don't want to debate in the Senate. They should be debating, really debating, non-stop. That's what Hamilton and the others envisioned. A debate hall that the only rule is that you respect the other people who have the floor. That's it. Period. Instead it's this cloakroom dealing bullcrap where they use virtual filibusters, cloture votes that are decided long before hand, and no actual debate happens.