Lest we forget, Mitch McConnell and the Republicans did away with the filibuster rule for SC.

[kentuck]

They used the excuse that Harry Reid and the Democrats reversed it to fill lower Court positions, because they were blocking every single appointment from the Obama Administration. So, they said they would just go ahead and do away with the 60-vote rule for Supreme Court Justices. They saw that as a fair swap. In fact, it was a crisis they created that had to be resolved.

And now, they are whining that Democrats want to do away with the 60-vote filibuster rule for legislative matters.

Why should any Democrat want to sympathize with these assholes?

[msfiddlestix]

1. I was wracking my memory files

and struggled to recall when Dems held up legislation during Moscow Mitch's reign vis a vis filibusters, blocks etc.

I feel anything RQP wanted to push through the Senate was a walk in the park, they owned the Senate.

Unfortunately we don't own the Senate when we have people like Manchen taking RQP's positions.

[dsc]

11. A case can be made that if they could draft an ACA repeal

that wasn't boxed in by reconciliation it might have gotten 50 votes. I honestly don't know if that is true or not as it is hypothetical. Otherwise they didn't care to pass laws is what it amounts to.

[unblock]

2. The legislative filibuster is also a crisis of their creation

Technically it existed for decades, but it was used only very rarely, until republicans decided to abuse it by filibustering virtually everything.

[kentuck]

3. Mitch McConnell created the mess.

And now the Democrats need to clean it up.

[BComplex]

9. If we're ever....EVER...going to create majority rule in this country, we're going to have to

be a lot more aggressive about our numbers of supporters. Supporters are getting fed up with having to always give away our power.

[Freddie]

4. So create a filibuster "exception"

For anything regarding voting rights. They did it for judicial appointments.

[Kid Berwyn]

5. When one side gets to make the rules, they usually win the game.

Past time for Democrats to make the rules.

ETA: We don’t toss the filibuster, Mitch will win in 2022, 2024 and beyond.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. They didnt have manchin to deal with

[AnnaLee]

7. Where would they get the votes?

If the Republicans continue to vote against even if they would vote for if they had the majority, where would the Democrats get the vote to overturn filibuster. I guess, at this point, I am wondering if this is an impossible dream.

[kentuck]

8. They could offer Lisa Murkowski a position in the government to caucus with the Democrats...

...some position where she could take home the bacon to Alaska. She might go for that?

[MichMan]

17. Bribery in other words

[LizBeth]

10. How did Republicans get the vote to override or get rid of filibuster for the SC? Is it just a 51

vote and not a 60 vote?

[whopis01]

18. Yes. A simple majority.

It was used by Democrats in 2013 to remove the filibuster on all judges other than the SC and then in 2017 by Republicans to remove it for SC nominees as well.

[LizBeth]

19. Thank you for info beyond what I asked. I have been curious about that also.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. I was opposed to filibuster reform but now realize it never works for us

What have we prevented by filibuster over the last 20 years?

What has been blocked by filibusters against us?

We're on the losing end of the filbuster about 94% of the time, or it seems that way to me.

Besides the GQP has ruined everything so what's left to protect? Nothing!

[c-rational]

13. The more I read about the filibuster and its history, the more I want to see it become

history. It allows the minority to prevent reasoned rule by the majority. It was originally used to appease southern slaveholders. We (Dems) need to go on an offensive storytelling about how this rule came to be and how it is being used to prevent our democracy from functioning.

[ananda]

14. Beats me. If Dems want to win any future elections..

they absolutely must pass HR-1 For the People Act.

[kacekwl]

15. We shouldn't think about it. Just do it

if the Democratic Party wants to get things done while we can just do it. You damn well know they would and will.

[Lonestarblue]

16. The excuse I read most often for keeping the filibuster is that it may be needed by Democrats.

At some point Republicans will control the Senate again, and the Democrats would need the filibuster to prevent the worst Republican legislation. The question that Democrats need to ask and answer is how often a filibuster achieved any benefit for them or was it simply a delaying tactic. Senator Merkley used a 15-hour filibuster of Kavanaugh’s vote for the Supreme Court. It did not change the outcome. I doubt it has changed many outcomes, especially for Democrats.

The argument that a simple majority vote for all legislation would benefit Republicans when they retake the Senate is doubtful. I will use an example from Kentucky. After hedge funders were allowed to essentially rob Kentucky’s state pension funds, Republican governor Matt Bevin and the legislature decided to reduce teachers’ pensions drastically. Teachers objected, of course, but that move cost him his reelection, and Kentucky now has a Democratic governor. My point is that Democrats can use the 60-vote rule to force some concessions from Republicans, but that only makes Republicans look better to the voting public because the bills aren’t as harmful as Republicans would like. Thus, voters keep voting for them. Would they if Republicans did as they wanted and cut SS and Medicare benefits?

The other argument is that the threat of the filibuster forces more bipartisanship. Again, that works in Republicans’ favor. They get concessions and weaken Democratic bills because of the 60 votes needed to pass a bill, and then when they’ve gotten all the concessions they can, many times they still vote no, as with the ACA. We need so many things done before the 2022 election, and hanging on to the need for 60 votes is just committing political suicide.