Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

634-5789

(4,175 posts)
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:06 PM Mar 2021

Dems must abolish the filibuster now, or risk losing the country to permanent GOP domination

As reported by Ronald Brownstein, writing for The Atlantic:

In its latest tally, the Brennan Center counts 253 separate voter-suppression proposals pending in 43 states. That’s significantly more than the number of bills it tracked after the 2010 election—180 bills, in 41 states—when significant GOP gains in the states triggered a similar wave of laws.

But there is a fundamental difference between now and 2010: The Supreme Court, now governed by a rabid 6-3 conservative majority (including, yes, John Roberts, the lead author of the 2013 decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act) is not merely likely—but certain—to uphold nearly any state-imposed restrictions that make their way to that “august” body. So all these new restrictions will not simply fade away in states like Georgia, Texas, Iowa, and Arizona; most will become the governing law in those states, and many more.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/3/4/2019159/-Democrats-must-abolish-the-filibuster-now-or-risk-losing-the-country-to-permanent-GOP-domination
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dems must abolish the filibuster now, or risk losing the country to permanent GOP domination (Original Post) 634-5789 Mar 2021 OP
Absofuckingloutely! SheltieLover Mar 2021 #1
Young voters favor Dems two to one Cicada Mar 2021 #2
The filibuster is why the events of January 6th happened thx64536 Mar 2021 #3
Nonsense. TwilightZone Mar 2021 #7
No First We Must Elect Enough Democrats to Eliminate the Filibuster Stallion Mar 2021 #4
Thank-you. I fail to understand why some keep calling for eliminating the filibuster now when the JohnSJ Mar 2021 #10
Permanent? No. TwilightZone Mar 2021 #5
Kill it dead ASAP. dalton99a Mar 2021 #6
You guys do know that if we kill it, we also won't be able to use it in the future, right? Hugh_Lebowski Mar 2021 #8
the filibuster crushes us mostly, not the Rethugs Celerity Mar 2021 #11
Thanks, some good points made there ... (nt) Hugh_Lebowski Mar 2021 #12
+1000 smirkymonkey Mar 2021 #17
Actually they can just add another exception to the filibuster andym Mar 2021 #9
That's a bit too vague of a definition I think ... Hugh_Lebowski Mar 2021 #13
How about defining liberty as clarifying or expanding the bill of rights andym Mar 2021 #14
That's better. Could give it a shot I suppose. Hugh_Lebowski Mar 2021 #15
They can weaken it Johnny2X2X Mar 2021 #16
 

thx64536

(47 posts)
3. The filibuster is why the events of January 6th happened
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:12 PM
Mar 2021

Until the filibuster is removed elections mean nothing.

Stallion

(6,474 posts)
4. No First We Must Elect Enough Democrats to Eliminate the Filibuster
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:14 PM
Mar 2021

it does no good to beat your head against the wall when it is politically impossible right now

We didn't get it done in November with a collapse in about 3 key Senate races

JohnSJ

(92,187 posts)
10. Thank-you. I fail to understand why some keep calling for eliminating the filibuster now when the
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:59 PM
Mar 2021

votes simply are not there

The two alternatives we have now is trying to change the filibuster rules, and 2022

TwilightZone

(25,471 posts)
5. Permanent? No.
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:14 PM
Mar 2021

Demographically, their time is coming to an end. It's likely to take longer than many assume, perhaps another 20 years, but unless the GOP radically changes, they're inevitably facing minority status to an extent that will make it exceedingly difficult to win elections on a national level, even via the Electoral College.

They know this better than anyone. That's why they're desperately trying to hold on to power by any means for as long as possible.

 

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)
8. You guys do know that if we kill it, we also won't be able to use it in the future, right?
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:31 PM
Mar 2021

And I'm not sure how getting rid of it is going to stop this problem with the States plus Supreme Court deficit.

No matter what law Congress passes, if the State's have the Supremes on their side, then they'll get their voter law cases taken there, and there's still a good chance they'll win. Hell, the Supremes could just throw out the rules they don't like our new voter rights bill even if we passed it, declare them unconstitutional. THe PuQ's in the State legislatures will sue over every one of them they don't like, you know this.

Not having the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees is why we got stuck with Gorsuch, Boofin Brett, and the Handmaid.

I think it's short-sighted to eliminate it, personally.

Celerity

(43,339 posts)
11. the filibuster crushes us mostly, not the Rethugs
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 03:07 PM
Mar 2021
The filibuster hurts only Senate Democrats -- and Mitch McConnell knows that. The numbers don't lie.

My own add - Sinema wants a 60 vote threshold on EVERY legislative action!. Not joking.



https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/filibuster-hurts-only-senate-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-knows-n1255787

snip

Cutting off debate in the Senate so legislation can be voted on is done through a procedure called "cloture," which requires three-fifths of the Senate — or 60 votes — to pass. I went through the Senate's cloture votes for the last dozen years from the 109th Congress until now, tracking how many of them failed because they didn't hit 60 votes. It's not a perfect method of tracking filibusters, but it's as close as we can get. It's clear that Republicans have been much more willing — and able — to tangle up the Senate's proceedings than Democrats. More important, the filibuster was almost no impediment to Republican goals in the Senate during the Trump administration. Until 2007, the number of cloture votes taken every year was relatively low, as the Senate's use of unanimous consent agreements skipped the need to round up supporters. While a lot of the cloture motions did fail, it was still rare to jump that hurdle at all — and even then, a lot of the motions were still agreed to through unanimous consent. That changed when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and McConnell first became minority leader. The number of cloture motions filed doubled compared to the previous year, from 68 to 139.

Things only got more dire as the Obama administration kicked off in 2009, with Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Of the 91 cloture votes taken during the first two years of President Barack Obama's first term, 28 — or 30 percent — failed. All but three failed despite having majority support. The next Congress was much worse after the GOP took control of the House: McConnell's minority blocked 43 percent of all cloture votes taken from passing. Things were looking to be on the same course at the start of Obama's second term. By November 2013, 27 percent of cloture votes had failed even though they had majority support. After months of simmering outrage over blocked nominees grew, Senate Democrats triggered the so-called nuclear option, dropping the number of votes needed for cloture to a majority for most presidential nominees, including Cabinet positions and judgeships. The next year, Republicans took over the Senate with Obama still in office. By pure numbers, the use of the filibuster rules skyrocketed under the Democratic minority: 63 of 123 cloture votes failed, or 51 percent. But there's a catch: Nothing that was being voted on was covered by the new filibuster rules. McConnell had almost entirely stopped bringing Obama's judicial nominees to the floor, including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

McConnell defended the filibuster on the Senate floor last week, reminding his counterparts of their dependence on it during President Donald Trump's term. "Democrats used it constantly, as they had every right to," he said. "They were happy to insist on a 60-vote threshold for practically every measure or bill I took up." Except, if anything, use of the filibuster plummeted those four years. There are two main reasons: First, and foremost, the amount of in-party squabbling during the Trump years prevented any sort of coordinated legislative push from materializing. Second, there wasn't actually all that much the Republicans wanted that needed to get past the filibuster in its reduced state after the 2013 rule change. McConnell's strategy of withholding federal judgeships from Obama nominees paid off in spades, letting him spend four years stuffing the courts with conservatives. And when Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was filibustered, McConnell didn't hesitate to change the rules again. Trump's more controversial nominees also sailed to confirmation without any Democratic votes. Legislatively, there were only two things Republicans really wanted: tax cuts and repeal of Obamacare. The Trump tax cuts they managed through budget reconciliation, a process that allows budget bills to pass through the Senate with just a majority vote.

Republicans tried to do the same for health care in 2017 to avoid the filibuster, failing only during the final vote, when Sen. John McCain's "no" vote denied them a majority. The repeal wouldn't have gone through even if the filibuster had already been in the grave. As a result, the number of successful filibusters plummeted: Over the last four years, an average of 7 percent of all cloture motions failed. In the last Congress, 298 cloture votes were taken, a record. Only 26 failed. Almost all of the votes that passed were on nominees to the federal bench or the executive branch. In fact, if you stripped out the nominations considered in the first two years of Trump's term, the rate of failure would be closer to 15 percent — but on only 70 total votes. There just wasn't all that much for Democrats to get in the way of with the filibuster, which is why we didn't hear much complaining from Republicans. Today's Democrats aren't in the same boat. Almost all of the big-ticket items President Joe Biden wants to move forward require both houses of Congress to agree. And given McConnell's previous success in smothering Obama's agenda for political gain, his warnings about the lack of "concern and comity" that Democrats are trying to usher in ring hollow. In actuality, his warnings of "wait until you're in the minority again" shouldn't inspire concern from Democrats. So long as it applies only to legislation, the filibuster is a Republicans-only weapon. There's nothing left, it seems, for the GOP to fear from it — aside from its eventual demise.

snip

andym

(5,443 posts)
9. Actually they can just add another exception to the filibuster
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 02:35 PM
Mar 2021

just like exceptions now exist for the budget, federal judges and SC judges, an exception can be made for "liberty" bills-- those that expand liberty by for example expanding voting rights.

 

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)
13. That's a bit too vague of a definition I think ...
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 03:20 PM
Mar 2021

Tax Cuts 'liberate' people from high taxes, etc ...

andym

(5,443 posts)
14. How about defining liberty as clarifying or expanding the bill of rights
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 03:28 PM
Mar 2021

and amendments that relate to expanding those rights, including the 13,14,15,19,24, and 26th amendments.

 

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)
15. That's better. Could give it a shot I suppose.
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 03:31 PM
Mar 2021

I do wonder who the arbiter would be of deciding whether (whatever) definition applies though.

Johnny2X2X

(19,060 posts)
16. They can weaken it
Sun Mar 7, 2021, 03:33 PM
Mar 2021

They can change the rules without eliminating altogether. There’s a middle ground.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Dems must abolish the fil...