General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAccording to what Senator Chris Murphy told Rachel tonight, democrats are going to cave
to minority rule so HR1 will not pass the Senate. That's because Manchin and Sinema won't get rid
of the filibuster. Adam Schiff has said this will lead to Republican
rule for the next decade (at least). Thus democracy will die (my conclusion).
WTF!?
How is this caving?
triron
(21,984 posts)Cha
(296,863 posts)Most Dems Do NOT deserve that!!
triron
(21,984 posts)If they were all united about voting rights HR1 would pass. It is critically important to democrats.
It is critically important to the survival of democracy. It is way beyond my understanding that any democrat would go against that.
Cha
(296,863 posts)DSandra
(999 posts)Turbineguy
(37,293 posts)that foreign terrorists will not attack the US. They know they can't compete with republicans.
Thekaspervote
(32,710 posts)gab13by13
(21,264 posts)Murphy said they are pursuing other possibilities. Maybe get rid of the filibuster in limited circumstances. He also suggested making them actually filibuster which I'm not too keen on.
I believe Murphy was being realistic that Manchin and Sinema are not going to vote to eliminate the filibuster. Unless Democrats can get the votes it is pointless to bring up a losing bill.
bdamomma
(63,801 posts)his presentation was good between the Cares Act which has the same provisions and the Covid Relief Bill. I don't think he said "cave".
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)the republicans were using. Rachel then discussed with him about the filibuster, and rules changing, and Murphy indicating there were discussions going on about that
He NEVER used the word "cave" as you said
triron
(21,984 posts)Of course not.
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)in the wee hours of the morning, after the reading of the relief bill requested by Johnson, after Johnson left the chamber, Van Hollen reduced the debate time on the relief bill from 20 hours to 7 hours, and because there were no republicans to object, the debate on the bill is significantly reduced.
I believe a lot of mechanisms will be used by the Democrats to improve the odds that they will get things passed
We shall see of course
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)rights legislation from the filibuster.
Of course that would defeat the OPs hyperbole suggesting that the "Democrats are caving"
triron
(21,984 posts)JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)that segment by implying that the "Democrats caved"
Your OP referred to HR1, and they were discussing mostly the relief package.
You may be unware but early this morning after Ron Johnson left the floor, Senator Van Hollen immediate brought reducing the debate time from 20 hours to 7 hours. There were no objections because johnson left after the reading of the bill. This is an example of the Democrats outplaying the republicans, and I believe whether through filibuster rule changes or other manuevers, the Democrats will have a strategy to get around the way the filibuster is currently implemented, without getting rid of the filibuster, and not losing Manchin, Senema, and others opposed to getting rid of the filibuster.
We shall see in the course time what results though
Cha
(296,863 posts)brush
(53,743 posts)Manchin and Sinema, alleged Dems, won't vote for the bill if that's in it. The bill will pass once that's out as it will pass with the process of reconciliation, a simple majority, which can only be done once and on budget matters. As for the filibuster mention, that's a whole other matter that has nothing to do with the relief bill.
Those two would have to be worked on all over again on another bill to get rid of the filibuster. And there's little chance they will budge on that vote either as it has to be passed with the full 60 votes.
Let's all try to stop rushing to say Dems are caving, especially when it a matter of mathematics and you either have the votes or you don't.
babylonsister
(171,035 posts)JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)filibuster, the Democrats can change the filibuster rules to exclude voting rights legislation from the filibuster
The OP used the word "caving", Senator Murphy did not, and Rachel provided away to get around it to pass HR1
JudyM
(29,204 posts)JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)and that it could be done with HR1 by excluding filibuster legislations relating to voting legislations
What wasn't discussed was whether Democrats would do it. Chris Murphy on Rachel's show indicating they are considering all kinds of options
JudyM
(29,204 posts)Our leadership teams performance has been smart and classy so far, very encouraging!
Cha
(296,863 posts)moonscape
(4,673 posts)ideas/solutions around the filibuster issue would take a little time, later into the session.
This was all in response to Rachel asking him to pull back the curtain on discussions with Manchin, and he is way too,smart to answer that directly. But yeah, realistic while not closing the door on the potential for creative solution.
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)dweller
(23,613 posts)said her son has a friend who listened to what was said, and said it was repeated
over and over like the way ppl dislike Rachel doing, but that it was said, like over
and over 😐
✌🏻
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)changing the rules of the filibuster to exclude voting rights legislation.
When the segment came up on the COVID relief bill, that is when Senator Murphy came on the show, and that is when the filibuster was brought up. Murphy brought up filibuster reforms that were being discussed. Murphy never used the word "CAVE". That is an entire mischaracterization of the show. I recorded it, and I played it twice over and confirmed that is NOT what Senator Murphy said, or implied. In fact he took Rachel point about changing the filibuster rules, and Murphy said it was being discussed.
Not sure what your son's friend was listening to, but it wasn't the same Rachel Maddow show I recorded tonight.
dweller
(23,613 posts)My comment was to OP and the nebulous report which several others besides yourself have commented to the actual interpretation... or facts that were lacking
my blah blah in response
✌🏻
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)tirebiter
(2,533 posts)Cant give up. Build momentum.
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)HR1. All you need to do is change the filibuster rules to exclude voting rights legislation
Sogo
(4,986 posts)and he explained how the Ds could reform the filibuster and keep everyone, including Manchin and Sinema, on board.
Here's Ornstein's article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/02/manchin-filibuster-never-sinema/
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)I recorded the show, and played it again to make sure.
Sogo
(4,986 posts)and the overall reformation of the filibuster that Norm Ornstein proposed on The Last Word.
I was so depressed last night when I went to bed that HR1 was an impossibility, but feel hopeful tonight! We have to pressure our Senators to adopt Ornstein's ideas....Here's his article on it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/02/manchin-filibuster-never-sinema/
JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)dansolo
(5,376 posts)The last option is worthless. Lowering the supermajority to 55 wouldn't solve anything. But I am all in favor of forcing the minority to continue the filibuster instead of requiring the majority to stop it. That will restore it's original intent, which was to be able to delay legislation, not block it indefinitely.
bdamomma
(63,801 posts)I heard that segment I thought he had some fine advice on the whole situation.
Baked Potato
(7,733 posts)JohnSJ
(92,061 posts)Celerity
(43,123 posts)Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, its meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans. Last year, Manchin said, The minority should Instead of naming and shaming them, Democrats might consider looking at what Manchin and Sinema like about the filibuster. Sinema recently said, Retaining the legislative filibuster is not meant to impede the things we want to get done. Rather, its meant to protect what the Senate was designed to be. I believe the Senate has a responsibility to put politics aside and fully consider, debate, and reach compromise on legislative issues that will affect all Americans. Last year, Manchin said, The minority should have input thats the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you wont have the Senate. Youre a glorified House. And I will not do that. If you take their views at face value, the goal is to preserve some rights for the Senate minority, with the aim of fostering compromise. The key, then, is to find ways not to eliminate the filibuster on legislation but to reform it to fit that vision. Here are some options:
Make the minority do the work.
Currently, it takes 60 senators to reach cloture to end debate and move to a vote on final passage of a bill. The burden is on the majority, a consequence of filibuster reform in 1975, which moved the standard from two-thirds of senators present and voting to three-fifths of the entire Senate. Before that change, if the Senate went around-the-clock, filibustering senators would have to be present in force. If, for example, only 75 senators showed up for a cloture vote, 50 of them could invoke cloture and move to a final vote. After the reform, only a few senators in the minority needed to be present to a request for unanimous consent and to keep the majority from closing debate by forcing a quorum call. The around-the-clock approach riveted the public, putting a genuine spotlight on the issues. Without it, the minoritys delaying tactics go largely unnoticed, with little or no penalty for obstruction, and no requirement actually to debate the issue. One way to restore the filibusters original intent would be requiring at least two-fifths of the full Senate, or 40 senators, to keep debating instead requiring 60 to end debate. The burden would fall to the minority, whod have to be prepared for several votes, potentially over several days and nights, including weekends and all-night sessions, and if only once they couldnt muster 40 the equivalent of cloture debate would end, making way for a vote on final passage of the bill in question.
Go back to the present and voting standard.
A shift to three-fifths of the Senate present and voting would similarly require the minority to keep most of its members around the Senate when in session. If, for example, the issue in question were voting rights, a Senate deliberating on the floor, 24 hours a day for several days, would put a sharp spotlight on the issue, forcing Republicans to publicly justify opposition to legislation aimed at protecting the voting rights of minorities. Weekend Senate sessions would cause Republicans up for reelection in 2022 to remain in Washington instead of freeing them to go home to campaign. In a three-fifths present and voting scenario, if only 80 senators showed up, only 48 votes would be needed to get to cloture. Add to that a requirement that at all times, a member of the minority party would have to be on the floor, actually debating, and the burden would be even greater, while delivering what Manchin and Sinema say they want more debate.
Narrow the supermajority requirement.
Another option would be to follow in the direction of the 1975 reform, which reduced two-thirds (67 out of a full 100) to three-fifths (60 out of 100), and further reduce the threshold to 55 senators still a supermajority requirement, but a slimmer one. Democrats might have some ability to get five Republicans to support their desired outcomes on issues such as voting rights, universal background checks for gun purchases or a path to citizenship for Dreamers. A reduction to 55, if coupled with a present-and-voting standard would establish even more balance between majority and minority. In a 50-50 Senate, and with the GOP strategy clearly being united opposition to almost all Democratic priorities, Biden and Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) need the support of Manchin and Sinema on a daily basis. They wont be persuaded by pressure campaigns from progressive groups or from members of Congress. But they might consider reforms that weaken the power of filibusters and give Democrats more leverage to enact their policies, without pursuing the dead end of abolishing the rule altogether.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Thanks for posting.
Baked Potato
(7,733 posts)Baked Potato
(7,733 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Bobstandard
(1,292 posts)Murphy didnt say the word cave but he inadvertently implied it by discussing nebulous alternatives that Dems might pursue I definitely took it as presaging cave. The ol well theres really nothing we can do routine. With Manchin and Sinema he might be right but please, show a little more fight.
In addition Murphys first sentence after Rachel asked him about Republican tactics began with the words, both sides do it. Hey, great messaging Chris!
On the plus side he did say he was for eliminating and I didnt take it that hes caving personally.
budkin
(6,699 posts)And drill into them just how important this is.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)to the Senate and make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant.