McConnell wants to use the filibuster to block Biden's agenda. Here's how Biden can outfox him

[DonViejo]

Doyle McManus
Sun, March 7, 2021, 7:00 AM·4 min read

-snip-

This month, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, promised to use the filibuster to block the election reform bill, which is seen as favorable to Democrats because it would make voting easier. He has made clear he won't be shy about filibustering other pieces of President Biden’s agenda as well, including a $15 minimum wage, immigration reform and proposals to curb climate change.

So Biden and his Democrats face a choice: Do they watch helplessly as McConnell, a master of obstruction, blocks the new president's priorities? Or has the moment come to finally scrap the filibuster, a time-dishonored piece of Senate tradition that many senators (and at least one former senator, Biden) say should be preserved?

The original idea behind the filibuster rule was kind of charming. Requiring a supermajority of 60 senators to bring a measure to a vote was supposed to promote broadly acceptable compromises instead of partisan measures that might squeak through with a narrower majority. But that’s not how the rule has worked in recent years. As the Senate has become increasingly polarized along partisan lines, the filibuster has become a weapon that enables the minority party to obstruct rather than negotiate.

An increasing number of Democratic leaders, including former President Obama, former Senate leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Rules Committee Chair Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota have called for scrapping the rule. So have many progressive leaders, frustrated that a seemingly arbitrary hurdle stands in the way of Biden’s most ambitious proposals.

-snip-

more/NO PAYWALL
https://news.yahoo.com/mcmanus-mcconnell-wants-filibuster-block-120048255.html

[LymphocyteLover]

1. you left out the solution from your excerpt

"Offer Manchin and Sinema what they say they want: a Senate where centrists like them have a chance to negotiate compromises more often.

The filibuster, as currently practiced, doesn't achieve that goal. Under McConnell, it has made the chamber a graveyard for legislation.

In a narrowly divided, polarized Senate, the 60-vote rule is probably too high. In a 50-50 Senate, it requires 10 mavericks to defy their party’s leader, and these days there aren’t that many free spirits on either side.

Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, recently offered several ways to fix the rule without scrapping it. One would be to simply lower the filibuster threshold to 55 votes instead of 60. Another would be to flip the way the rule works and require 40 senators to show up to stop a bill, instead of putting the burden on 60 to move it forward."

[comradebillyboy]

2. An interesting idea. More importantly, a constructive

idea.

[LymphocyteLover]

4. Yeah, I hadn't heard the idea of needing on 55 votes to overcome a filbuster

but I like the idea of just making them speak rather than an automatic filibuster where you just announce it.

The 40 in-person Senator idea seems good too.

[crickets]

5. Automatic filibuster is silly.

It has to hurt to call one: make it count by making them stand and speak. Otherwise, it's way too easy to abuse it. The 55 votes and 40 in-person suggestions are good ideas as well.

[LymphocyteLover]

7. Yup! 100%

[Irish_Dem]

3. The pandemic has shown us that we must have a functioning government.

One that can respond quickly to severe crises. And can move our country forward, in line with other industrialized countries. Otherwise we are going to be a third world country.

[Cha]

6. Bookmark TY