To those on the forum that oppose removing (or significantly modifying) the filibuster

[Nexus2]

What are the reasons that brought you to that stance? I'm curious as I don't see much of a postive to it, but I'd like to hear other opinions or even an explanation of what others (including elected officials such as Manchin and Sinema) might feel that pushes them to maintain it.

Thanks in advance

[pwb]

1. Both sides live with it?

Always have.

[dflprincess]

6. No, they haven't always lived with it

It didn't show up until the mid 19th century when it was invented by the pro-slavery faction to help their side.

It has mostly been used to hold up civil rights legislation.

[pwb]

8. In my life they have both lived with it.

It is used all the time not just for civil rights now. Objection is the word they use and it is daily. Both sides use it when out of power.

[dflprincess]

9. Now it is used all the time

but its history was mainly a way to block civil rights.

"Both side do it" is not a justification to keep it in it's current form. If it stays, the rules have to go back to making whoever opposes a bill to stand on the floor of the chamber talking until s/he falls over.

[maxsolomon]

2. The only reason to preserve it is that it won't be there when/if we need it

to stop some GOP bullshite.

I'd wager that's 66.67% of Manchinema's objections.

[Lucky Luciano]

12. Except, they're much better at the...

…”heads I win, tails you lose” game.

In other words, “we must respect these traditions or they’ll use it against us when it’s their turn” is a terrible way to think when dealing with terrorists. The terrorists will just take advantage of our naïveté and politeness and then destroy the traditions when it’s their turn as they steamroll over us. No doubt, that’s their plan.

[maxsolomon]

14. I concur.

They backed Harry Reid into a corner on Judges and then extended it to SCOTUS judges, and thereby established a Conservative Majority that will probably last 20 years.

[Nexus2]

16. When the GOP is in the majority, don't they just drop it for what the want to do?

Like for Federal Judge appointments?

[maxsolomon]

20. Well, they baited/forced Harry Reid to drop it for Federal Judges.

Because they obstructed so many of Obama's that it was affecting the functioning of the Courts.

Then they extended it to cover the SCOTUS.

[TheFarseer]

3. I support the talking filibuster

If you really don’t want something, you can stand in front of the Senate and explain it to the American people for hours on the end.

[dflprincess]

4. This

[BootinUp]

5. Yep. Nt

[BigmanPigman]

11. At the very least!

[WarGamer]

7. EDIT: nevermind, I don't feel like being tarred and feathered tonight.

[In It to Win It]

10. I support reforming the filibuster

Because the minority party has no incentive to work with the majority.The minority doesn’t want to give the majority a win. I think the burden of holding up legislation shouldn’t be on the majority to court the minority. That burden should be on the minority. They get to hold up legislation by doing nothing.

I’m also keeping in mind that we are dealing with an opposition that doesn’t want government to work for people. That’s been apart of their platform for a long time. The small government concept entails “big bloated government” not working so they ensure that it doesn’t work even when they have power. They want everyone to see that it doesn’t work (thinking back to the TEA party movement).

Congress is supposed to be the proactive branch of government. With the filibuster in its current form, I understand that the pendulum always swings back and we don’t want them to pass anything when they have power but Congress can’t be all that proactive with the filibuster in its current form… and that’s also not to say that reforming the filibuster will have a different result. However, how exactly do we enact desperate needed change by keeping things exactly the way they are?

[brush]

13. Elections have consequences. If we govern effectively we can...

live with the results of how well we improve the nation. IMO Dems always have to pull the nation out of repug policies/depressions that favor the rich so I say let's get rid of the minority rule filibuster.

And while we're at it, get rid of the only other minority rule entity as well, the EC, as those are the only two elections in the whole nation where the minority rules over the majority.

That is not democracy.

[kairos12]

15. If the Reich Wing truly believed the filibuster was a good idea

every Republican State Legislature would institute it.

They don't.

[Mr.Bill]

17. I want it removed because

when the republicans ever take control of the Senate again, removing it will be their first order of business.

[brooklynite]

18. I support eliminating the filibuster, BUT....

I'm accepting the fact that WHEN Republicans regain control of the House and Senate, they will push through RADICAL policies. We need to be prepared for that.

[Nexus2]

19. That is a hard reality, isn't it? [nt]

[dsc]

22. They are getting those policies now and forever thanks to SCOTUS and a majority of states

They will get universal legal assault weapons from the courts, they will dismantle civil rights laws for gays in the courts, they will eliminate Blacks from voting in the states. They will ban abortion in the states. There is literally nothing they wish to which can't be done either in the states or the courts.

[LiberatedUSA]

21. I am not against it...but...

...I think that Republican states will start ignoring Supreme Court decisions from an expanded court; they’ll call it cheating. If a bunch of Republican states do it, then we will be at a cross roads on what to do.

I don’t see Blue states going along with the likely outcome of the decision on the new Pro Choice case the court just accepted.

We may just be at such a partisan point in time, that we have already moved toward either side deciding any SCOTUS decision that doesn’t go their way, doesn’t count. Playing a game of adding members each time someone is in power will just encourage that.

But we have to protect voting rights, so we may just have to expand the court and let the chips fall where they may.