General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWith the win in GA and us Democrats having actual control of the Senate, filibuster elimination
will be on the top of the agenda in the upcoming Senate, right? After all we have been told for the past two years that it was a top priority for us and that the filibuster is a Jim Crow relic and anti-democratic.
We were also told that if the Republicans had the chance to eliminate the filibuster they would do so at the first chance they had, so we should do so first. This argument ignores the fact that McConnell DID have the chance to eliminate the filibuster in 2017-2018 and was even asked to by President Trump and refused.
If we don't make this a Senate priority as has been pushed for the last two years are we just conceding that filibuster reform is only actually a priority or even wanted when one party has the trifecta of House, Senate, and Presidency? If the filibuster is such a bad thing shouldn't we get rid of it no mater which party may be able to wield the new power when they have the trifecta in the future (like maybe in 2024 with a 2nd term for President Biden and a Democratic House and Senate, or even a President DeSantis and a Republican House and Senate)?
For anyone still taking a principled stand, IF the Republicans win the Presidency, House and Senate in 2024 you would be in favor of eliminating the filibuster? If not why not? Wouldn't it still be a Jim Crow relic and undemocratic?
As you may be able to tell I am not a fan of getting rid of the filibuster and I am joined by many currently serving Democrats and former President Obama in defending the filibuster (but only when they were in the minority - kind of convenient don't you think).
I predict that there will be no push for filibuster reform in the upcoming Senate and that there will be little if any calls for filibuster reform here on DU.
JohnSJ
(91,953 posts)elimination
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)As being against changing the filibuster for over a year but the calls both in the Senate and here on DU have continued.
Do you support eliminating the filibuster on principle?
If so would you support the Republicans eliminating the filibuster?
JohnSJ
(91,953 posts)it wont happen.
They have already gotten rid of the filibuster for judicial appointments, which was done because the republicans would not allow any Democratic appointments, and McConnel eliminated it for SC appointments
The filibuster is an unDemocratic process in my view, making an already broken system worse.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)And I argue it will not be a priority (or frankly even mentioned) in the Senate this term.
My argument is that the reason it will not be brought up is because it will not benefit the Democrats since the Republicans will control the House. It was never about principle, but rather pure political power. At least if one argued that I could respect that position. What I see as hypocritical is when it would help us we think it is a good thing and an principle we should get rid of the filibuster but when we dont get any benefit we are, at best indifferent.
onenote
(42,375 posts)First, Manchin and Sinema are still opposed and there may be others who haven't spoken publicly, but would just as soon not have to vote on it.
Second, it won't change anything since, without the House, even if the filibuster repeal allowed the Senate to pass a bill, it would die in the House if it wasn't something repubs supported.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)Then what does it matter if it will change anything (meaning we can pass our priorities). If it is a undemocratic Jim Crow relic shouldnt we support eliminating the filibuster even if we see no benefit immediately or even if the Republicans control the Senate?
onenote
(42,375 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 7, 2022, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Indeed, the filibuster -- preventing a vote on a measure in the Senate -- dates back to the 18th Century. The first cloture rule, which allowed debate to be cut off (i.e., allowed for ending a filibuster) was adopted in 1917.
It is true that the filibuster was used in the past to block Civil Rights legislation. However it also has been used in recent years by Democrats as well as Republicans to prevent a vote on a bill. From 2009 through 2014, the Democrats had the Senate majority but were frustrated by Republican filibusters; then from 2015 through 2020, the Republicans held the majority and the Democrats used the filibuster to block Senate bills. Overall, from 2009 through 2020, the filibuster was used to block legislation over 600 times by the Republicans and over 600 times by the Democrats. Which may explain why enthusiasm among Democratic Senators for getting rid of the filibuster is muted. At best, most Democrats might support getting rid of the filibuster for targeted legislation, but not for everything.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)history of the filibuster. I think it was disingenuous to characterize the filibuster as such and it was solely done to pressure the Democratic Senate holdouts to change their position. However, after making such a principled argument it is hard to walk it back.
Demsrule86
(68,351 posts)kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)If so will you support its elimination if the Republicans control the Senate?
Johnny2X2X
(18,745 posts)Dems can take the House back and hold the Senate and White House, then eliminate the filibuster and get some big things done.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)(snip)
The map for these elections, like in the previous Class 1 Senate election in 2018, is considered by elections analysts to be unfavorable to Democrats, who will be defending 23 of the 33 seats of Class 1.[3] Three Democrats in this class represent states won by Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020 (Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia), while no Republicans represent states won by Joe Biden in 2020. Further, Democrats are defending seats in seven states that Biden won by a single-digit margin (Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, and Maine) while Republicans are defending only two seats in states that Trump won by a single-digit margin (Florida and Texas). In the two most recent senate election cycles that coincided with presidential elections (2016 and 2020), only one senator (Republican Susan Collins of Maine in 2020) has been elected in a state that was won by the presidential nominee of the opposite party.[4]
Johnny2X2X
(18,745 posts)Biden is going to be a very strong candidate, he's going to bring some wins. We'll probably lose Montana and West Virginia (Manchin). We can hold the rest and try to win Texas or Florida to hold the Senate. It will be tough, but Dems can do it.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)political power we should have just said so with the reasoning being if we can impose our agenda it will be so popular with the public that we would be rewarded electorally. Do you oppose the filibuster on principle? If so would you support the Republicans eliminating it if/when they regain the Senate?
Johnny2X2X
(18,745 posts)And getting rid of it now is pointless when you dont have the House. The filibuster wont even be used over the next 2 years.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)Johnny2X2X
(18,745 posts)Its not on principle. Its on winning and whats right for the country. Getting rid of it now only takes it away from Dems in the future, doesnt take it away from Reps now because they have no resin to use it right now.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)but at least you are honest in that you would only want to do it when if it benefited us.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)dsc
(52,130 posts)which is one less than needed. We needed Mandella or Beasley to win, which they didn't.
RussBLib
(8,984 posts)I don't recall them voting on it, so the current Dem Senators may not be on the record about it, which gives a lot of cover.
I vaguely recall some analyst suggesting there were a few others who were opposed.to lifting it. Unnamed.
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)Plenty of Senators sitting by and letting Manchin and Sinema take the heat.
onenote
(42,375 posts)There might be 49 votes for some form of reform of the filibuster. There are a number of proposals floating around.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-every-senate-democrat-has-said-about-filibuster-reform
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)the filibuster and it being described as a Jim Crow relic and undemocratic and being the subject of 100's of posts here on DU calling for its elimination based (at least in part) on principle.
My arguement is it was never based on principle but rather raw political power (which is fine actually - just say so)
If the filibuster remains in place and somehow the Republicans get the trifecta again I will bet dollars to doughnuts that there will be NUMEROUS Democratic politicians and posters here defending it.
Sogo
(4,963 posts)Filibustering meaning having to actually hold the floor, like "Mr. Smith."
beaglelover
(3,441 posts)WarGamer
(12,103 posts)And WHAT legislation are you going to pass, even with no filibuster... with a GOP House??
lol...
kcr
(15,300 posts)kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)even if it will not move our agenda forward? I mean should we keep what has been described as a Jim Crow relic and undemocratic and the subject of 100's of posts here on DU just because there is no short term benefit? If so then I think the opposition to the filibuster was never based on principle.
Amishman
(5,541 posts)We lost the House, even without the filibuster any bills we get through the Senate will never make it to Joe's desk.
Removing it next session is at best pointless, at worst we take the heat for removing it and give the Pubs an easier path if they ever retake full control.