Note to @Sen_JoeManchin: Requiring a TALKING filibuster would not "weaken" the filibuster, rather it

[soothsayer]

Link to tweet

?s=21


Jon Cooper 🇺🇸
@joncoopertweets
Note to @Sen_JoeManchin: Requiring a TALKING filibuster would not “weaken” the filibuster, rather it would return to the ORIGINAL filibuster. How about supporting that?
7:00 AM · Apr 8, 2021

[Eyeball_Kid]

1. Someone's poking a knife in Manchin's back.

Someone has his number. Manchin is pretending to be principled because he's protecting himself from extreme criticism and scandal. There's something lurking in his background that will bubble to the surface IF he demonstrates loyalty to the Democratic Party.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

7. You mean like voting for the stimulus? nt

[Johonny]

2. Joe's fat and lazy and doesn't want to be required to do work like talking

Let's face it, Joe has no agenda but to stay in the senate where he will do nothing of remembrance but having helped make the lives of millions of Americans worse by his inaction.

He's so lazy that he talks about working with Republicans, but it's been months now and he's brought zero Republicans into the picture for this magic bipartisanship he speaks about.

[Eyeball_Kid]

5. Bipartisanship is a red herring.

Joe knows that there won't be any. He's using bipartisanship as a tool to avoid exposing himself in scandal. It's the only rational explanation for Manchin's intransigence.

[lagomorph777]

9. Same kind of Kompromat that Trump/McConnell/Putin control the GQP with?

I wonder whether Trump and McConnell have kompromat against each other (mutually assured destruction)?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. It appears to me that Joe M. Is getting his

script from Mitch McConnell and/or other Republicans. He doesn’t sound independent or speaking from conviction.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

6. Didn't Manchin say he WOULD support that weeks ago? nt

[lagomorph777]

10. Hell, that was weeks ago...

...before the latest Kompromat shipment from Putin to McConnell...

[uponit7771]

12. +1, he also said he'd give kGQP 30 days didn't he? tia

[FBaggins]

8. It would weaken it in his mind

He's previously said that he thinks that a filibuster should come with a political price. Essentially that the public should be on notice that you're actively blocking a specific piece of legislation.

But he's also said that he supports maintaining the 60 vote standard to cut off debate.

If "requiring a TALKING filibuster" translates to "and once that senator sits down... 51 votes can pass whatever he was blocking"... then he doesn't agree that that isn't a change.

And the version that fits (i.e., requiring actual debate, but allowing multiple senators to do so and maintining 60 votes to cut it off) just feeds into republican hands.

[heckles65]

11. I don't get this guy.

He can either lose his job in two years and make a difference or lose it in eight and be forgotten. I know what I would chose.

Either way, he won't starve.

[uponit7771]

13. IKR !?

[JT45242]

14. It isn't 60 votes it is 3/5 of the people who are present...

A talking filibuster with continuous senate would force the (R's) who want to filibuster to stay in the chamber. If someone sits down and they call the question it either gets cloture and they vote or someone else can talk.

Shumer can simply wear them out and prevent them from going to fundraisers. So, let's say 20 of the (R) go home on Friday to fundraise and one of them is still speaking when they leave. When he sits down, there would potentially be 80 people in the room. It would only take 48 votes to end debate and set a vote date.

40 senators who represent 15% of the country should not be able to stop all legislation without having to work at it.

[Bayard]

15. I went back and read some history of the filibuster last night

What we are stuck with now is nothing like its original intention. And as a number of scholars have said--its un-Constitutional.