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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
1. Uh,---you're using logic again. I agree, but that's not always popular with the "keep our powder
Mon Mar 8, 2021, 05:13 PM
Mar 2021

dry" folks.

regnaD kciN

(26,035 posts)
2. With all due respect, that makes no sense...
Mon Mar 8, 2021, 05:16 PM
Mar 2021

If the “majority leader” won’t put something to a vote, it’s because the majority party doesn’t want it — so there’s no reason for the minority party to need to filibuster it. That only works when the majority party wants something, and the minority party seeks to block it.

And, yes, the filibuster has served us well during periods of Republican hegemony, serving to block some of their worst moves (remember how Dubya planned to privatize Social Security?), although I admit it lost a lot of its effectiveness when the Republicans killed it for SCOTUS nominations. Without it, we might have had Justice Bork as a leader on a conservative-dominated SCOTUS from the ‘80s onward...and, considering some of his views (including that the First Amendment only applied to “explicitly-political” speech, and was even limited in that area), we might be in a much worse place today.

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
4. "That only works when the majority party wants something, and the minority party seeks to block it."
Tue Mar 9, 2021, 02:38 PM
Mar 2021

Exactly. That's what's happening now.

Plus, we live in an unprecedented time. In 2020, Bork would have been approved for the SCOTUS.

Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #2)

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
6. So for the first two years of the Trump Presidency, the Repubs had control of both houses
Tue Mar 9, 2021, 03:08 PM
Mar 2021

Last edited Tue Mar 9, 2021, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

and the Presidency. Like we have today, they had a very narrow Senate majority. Using the filibuster, Democrats succeeded in blocking:

1. Blocked bills to build Trump's wall
2. Blocked numerous attempts to repeal the ACA
3. Blocked legislation forcing 'sanctuary cities' from complying with Federal laws
4. Blocked numerous attempts to ban or restrict abortion
5. Blocked Tim Scott's police reform bill

This is in addition to lots of legislation Repubs didn't even bother to bring to the floor, knowing the Dems would filibuster it. Even with that, Dems forced over 300 cloture votes during that 2 year period. Democrats essentially saved our country by relying on the filibuster for those first 2 years. Once we took back the House in 2018, it became less of a big deal, but make no mistake, the filibuster saved our asses.

Can you imagine if they had been able to pass whatever they wanted during those first 2 years. We'd have a flat tax, the IRS would have been eliminated, Title 9 would be way different, bathroom usage would be regulated, English would be our official language, we'd have a different census, we'd have strict limits on immigration, and a ton of other shit would now be a part of our daily lives.

MineralMan

(146,195 posts)
7. See Reply #6.
Tue Mar 9, 2021, 03:15 PM
Mar 2021

There is your answer.

The filibuster is designed for, and used for, preventing the majority party from walking over the minority party in the Senate.

When Democrats use it, and they have many, many times, we cheer. When Republicans use it, we boo.

That's why not everyone who is a Democrat in the Senate wants to get rid of it. Not having the filibuster could work against us later, just as the filibuster has saved our ass in the past.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What has the filibuster d...