General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFellow Democrats, does dear President Biden know something we don't?
President Biden and you and I know that only one half of Congress is in chaos, and that the other half, our half, are trying to conserve -- as in "be conservative of" -- democratic order.
I love our Democratic leaders and this democratic republic.
But after the last four years, President Biden and Schumer must listen to the nation's cry.
They are hearing us, but not listening enough to end the Senate's filibuster rule. A rule.
If there is no For The People Act because of that one Senate rule, dark money fascism -- fully allowed by SCOTUS -- will then fund one party minority rule across 26 red states.
The preservation of that one Senate rule that is now a wall, will keep the owners of those states' representatives hidden. Dark. Owners of the federal government will remain dark. It's is only a matter of time before they hollow out the DOJ and use privatized militias nationally. Just as they do with our southern neighbors.
That the ACLU and SPLC have fought voter suppression for years; that Congress people have protested, been arrested, that media don't worry about their own existence in a non-democratic nation -- all that will have been for nothing if this last wall is not torn down, and the For The People Act is not passed.
If the For The People Act is not passed, the world will see that majority party rule can be rendered useless by corporate forces.
Those who have "tried hard," and media who have ignored this horror, will not be around anymore to help revive democracy once it is dead.
The military? They will still get paid.
Senator Schumer can help end the filibuster without a floor vote.
He can tell the Rules Committee to vote on it, and then tell the parliamentarian.
He and the Rules Committee can end the rule. End it.
And Dems can always reinstate it, even though it was a rule that never should have existed to start with, not being fairly established OR fairly used.
As for the Senate's deliberative body reputation, that calling will still be conserved IN SENATE COMMITTEES.
Democrats always could win up or down votes based on the merits of their arguments, as can Republicans. So, their passing bills through deliberative committees not hinder Senate deliberation at all, but will only hinder minority word game politics before the whole Senate body. Without the filibuster there will actually be MORE deliberation on record through committees.
When all senators take up or down votes on bills for The People's business, they continue the truthful history of the Congressional Record. Ending the filibuster will end all the chaos of stupid word games that have not been deliberative at all.
The chaotic half of Congress know that keeping the Senate filibuster rule will strangle majority rule democracy.
Eventually, nothing good comes from dark money. We will live under taxation without representation.
Dark money is pressing state houses, Wall Street and banks not to care about any of that, just keep the power of money. In the gambling world of Wall Street (kicking Exxon out) this is one bet even they don't want to make.
Does it even matter enough if Americans know that
-- corporate rule perverts freedom in the name of freedom?
-- freedom is not money, but part of nature?
-- they will not survive corporate-made climate catastrophes by rule of money?
Is it that President Biden knows, like Texas Democrats, that democracy is as democracy does?
Is it that we, like Texas, are going to have to learn that the easy or hard way?
I don't know that Joe Biden knows something we don't.
But I know it's hard to wait to find out, meanwhile feeling both anxious over dark money, and trusting that our leadership will help things turn out okay.
EDIT: for clarity
tritsofme
(17,371 posts)He can tell the Rules Committee to vote on it, and then tell the parliamentarian.
He and the Rules Committee can end the rule. End it.
Where do you get this stuff?
ancianita
(35,949 posts)So what have you got. I can delete the word "alone" which is maybe inaccurate. I get it.
tritsofme
(17,371 posts)None of it.
ancianita
(35,949 posts)tritsofme
(17,371 posts)respectively, to limit filibusters on presidential nominees. Its well documented, and you can read about it anywhere.
Im more curious to know the source of your misinformation?
ancianita
(35,949 posts)Its time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete, Reid said in a lengthy floor speech on Thursday morning.
A furious Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who tried to recess the Senate for the day before the rules change could get a vote, said after the minoritys power was limited by Democrats: I dont think this is a time to be talking about reprisal. I think its a time to be sad about what has been done to the United States Senate.
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-nuclear-option-100199
It's documented, yes, but not well known by most who read or listen to nightly news.
The source of what misinformation?
tritsofme
(17,371 posts)Senator Schumer alone can end the filibuster without a floor vote.
He can tell the Rules Committee to vote on it, and then tell the parliamentarian.
He and the Rules Committee can end the rule. End it
Nothing in that quote is true, it is misinformation.
Im curious if you just imagined this up yourself, or if you consumed this misinformation from somewhere else?
ancianita
(35,949 posts)You saw where I've gotten my information, and yet you're still "curious" about me consuming misinformation.
Re the other points, if committees aren't influenced by Senate leaders, then why did Schumer and McConnell attend the first Rules Committee meeting a while back. And why did Sanders meet with the parliamentarian to refresh his/her memory about the numbers and wording of reconciliation bills that could still go to the floor.
I speculated that he could try it and not one thing could be done about it. He'd break a rule, and nothing but bad right wing press would happen. And the law would then be passed.
Do you no think there's any other way but the ones Democrats have already tried?
No matter how or when that law is passed, we all know it will get challenged in the courts.
tritsofme
(17,371 posts)I dont have any clue where you got your information, but I do know it is not true.
Schumer cannot end the filibuster without a floor vote.
The rules committee cannot change the rules or precedents of the Senate without a floor vote.
I have no idea what tell the parliamentarian is supposed to mean.
Schumer and the Rules Committee cannot end the rule
Everything you posted is false. There is nothing to debate.
ancianita
(35,949 posts)Except that this attack on national voting rights calls for a different tack.
If the Senate and Schumer are bound by them, that doesn't make the "end the rule" argument false.
You disagree because of two status quo rules that I think should be broken.
Because this voting rights law is more important than the rules used to keep any voting rights law suppressed.
tritsofme
(17,371 posts)The bottom line is that it would take 50+1 votes to end the filibuster.
The end.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)obamanut2012
(26,047 posts)And, I'm glad he can't.
ancianita
(35,949 posts)andym
(5,443 posts)1) It would take all 50 Democratic Caucus votes + VP Harris to end the filibuster, and at least two members are against ending it, so it won't happen.
2) The process of attempting to end the filibuster is VERY time-consuming because of arcane Senate rules allowing long debates, which means that the GOP Senate caucus could essentially bring all Senate activities to a halt to debate ending the filibusters, which could take many months and pre-empt all Democratic priorities such as infrastructure and the Democratic budget bill with reforms to help everything from Universal pre-K education/childcare to Medicare including Dentistry and Hearing benefits. and lowering the age of qualification to 60, etc.
ancianita
(35,949 posts)Okay, that helps on the climate goals, thanks.
Sneederbunk
(14,279 posts)ripcord
(5,280 posts)ancianita
(35,949 posts)but to tear down bills that would benefit anyone but their donors. I remember the 60 times Republicans forced Democrats to filibuster for the ACA under Boehner, Ryan and McConnell, when Repubs were going to tear it down. IIRC, Biden was there at the time.
How the Republicans have used the filibuster is not to be conflated with being deliberative. Just deliverative.
So Biden also remembers that Republicans have corrupted the meaning and use of the filibuster.
ChrisF1961
(457 posts)Thats why hes President and we are not.
brooklynite
(94,373 posts)And that the Senate Majority Leader can arbitrarily override both a Floor Vote and the Parliamentarian?