*IF* Thune were to "go nuclear" and remove the filibuster,

[no_hypocrisy]

I predict it would be indefinitely -- until just before the Senate has a democratic majority. Then last-minute vote to return to the filibuster.

[FBaggins]

1. They'll probably just carve out "clean CRs" nt

[Littlebro]

2. You can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again

You can change the rules with simple majority. It doesn't matter if they go back to filibuster, once the precedent is established, Dems will simply change it back if they have majority. Even the old school traditionalists will vote for rule change.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Welcome to DU. But would Democrats do that?

Republicans have no shame in hypocrisy.

If Democrats had their chance to re-instate a simple majority vote after the Republicans re-instated the filibuster, the Democrats would be accused of undermining the principles of the Senate.

IOKIYAR

[Demsrule86]

8. Let the GOP blamed for the demise of the ACA and children starving in the street. I hope

in the end the GOP won't do it. But they really don't care how many Americans and particularly kids they kill. And the MAGA idiots who elected our murderer in chief...will with the others.

[littlemissmartypants]

14. Welcome to DU Littlebro. 👋

[marble falls]

16. The fillibuster worked VERY well until changes were made to the rules during Reagan's terms.

[marble falls]

21. There was nothing wrong with the filibuster until the Reagan Congress showed up.

[MichMan]

4. Lots of support here for Democrats to get rid of it last year

It was said to be undemocratic.

[Prairie Gates]

11. I don't even see anyone in this thread opposing nuking the filibuster

So what's your point?

[W_HAMILTON]

18. He likes to try to point out hypocrisy from DUers...

...but as you -- and others, including myself -- have pointed out, most Democrats would happily get rid of the filibuster, regardless of how Republicans might abuse that same power (spoiler alert: Republicans already have made it so they can achieve their most prized policies through a simple majority anyway, so having the filibuster in place hurts mostly Democrats only).

[johnnyfins]

5. IF dems regain power,

Filibuster should be eliminated. Whether MAGA party does it now or dems later, it needs to go.

Dems will need to rebuild this country. MAGAs can stay in minority purgatory for a couple decades. Fuck them all. They have done this to themselves.

[lark]

6. If they do then Dems should immediately request all the Epstein files.

[themaguffin]

7. It doesn't matter. They should absolutely "go nuclear" - it really mostly helps the GOP. If the GOP reverts, then...

Dems need to just end it, using the GOP's precedent because you know, tRaDiTiOn.

The GOP doesn't do anything beyond tax cuts and judges. Democrats pass (or try to pass) legislation on many things which often gets blocked by this asinine thing. Add to that gerrymandering of the House and the GOP's ridiculous advantage due to rural states in the Senate, yeah f the filibuster.

[Prairie Gates]

10. Correct

[Prairie Gates]

9. The filibuster is stupid and should be gotten rid of

For the last 30 years its primary role has been to promote Republican positions and destroy progressive change. If the Republicans want to get rid of it to pass their health care destroying budgets, they should go ahead and do so and they can own their own votes.

[Midnight Writer]

12. I support the filibuster, but not in its current form.

A speaking filibuster during a Senate debate can be worthwhile. It can call attention to a worthy issue. It can delay votes while negotiations take place. It can rally voters to influence their representatives.

The 60-vote rule is a new innovation (from the 70s, I believe) and I think it has been terribly abused. Legislation is thrown out completely if it does not pass the 60-vote threshold. I think that is a mistake.

Return to the speaking filibuster, the one we had for the first 190 years of our republic.

[littlemissmartypants]

13. If people are still able to read in the next 250 years it could be worthwhile.

[Renew Deal]

15. The filibuster is a rule

And it's all about the party in power. Whoever has the votes makes the rules.

[marble falls]

17. It was formed for exactly opposite reasons you claimed. Blame the change to the rules when Reagan was President, ...

... the filibusters allows for the politically weaker party to have a chance to convince and form compromise for laws those in power want to jamb down our throats.

[Renew Deal]

19. Did you respond to the right post?

I didn't say anything about why the filibuster was formed.

[Emile]

20. Expanding the Supreme Court would be our first move.