Democratic insiders set up a 'war room' to quickly kill the filibuster

[brooklynite]

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — Democratic insiders are assembling a coalition behind the scenes to wage an all-out war on the Senate filibuster in bullish anticipation of sweeping the 2020 election and passing an ambitious progressive agenda.

Veteran party operatives, activist groups and supportive senators are coordinating message and strategy to dial up the pressure to quickly end the 60-vote threshold early next year, fearing that preservation of the rule will enable Republicans to kill Joe Biden’s legislative agenda in its cradle.

They’re consolidating that effort under a coalition called Fix Our Senate run by Eli Zupnick, a former communications director for No. 3 Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

Members include liberal groups like Indivisible, Communications Workers of America, Working Families Party, Brady Campaign, Demand Justice, Data for Progress, Evergreen Action, Stand Up America and Common Cause.


Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/democratic-insiders-set-war-room-quickly-kill-filibuster-n1239920

[bucolic_frolic]

1. I was opposed to this, but has it stopped anything lately?

Did it prevent a Trump Court pick, sell off of federal lands, oil and gas leases, deregulation?

So, yeah, if our time has come, we must do what Mitch and Trump did. Ignore everything and go for it.

[bullimiami]

2. Think on this. The Senate is already heavily tilted toward the smaller states.

The compromise was already made by having 2 Senators from each state regardless of population.
The filibuster magnifies that unfairness.

[roamer65]

7. I mentioned it the other day.

The quickest change we can make to rectify the imbalance is the elimination of the filibuster.

I agree with you 100 pct.

[paleotn]

25. +1000 This.

[Dopers_Greed]

3. I'd prefer to give statehood to DC and Puerto Rico

[Statistical]

5. Bingo and implement the Wyoming Rule to expand the House.

but I still favor killing the filibuster. It is a false sense of security. Republicans have rolled it back on everything they wanted to get passed. The instant it would favor them to do so Republicans would roll it further back so any "security" it provides is illusionary.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. Expand scotus as well?

[roamer65]

8. Definitely.

11 justices.

We can do it on a simple majority vote of each house after we kill the filibuster.

[IronLionZion]

13. If PR got house seats, it would be 4 because of their population

plus 2 senators. That would be sweet

[RicROC]

24. also DC?

how many Representatives would they add to Congress?

[paleotn]

26. Only one for DC, given its population, but....

that would only temporarly add a new seat to the House of Reps. The House is capped at 435 due to the Reapportionment Act of 1929. When Alaska and Hawaii became states in the 50's, the House total went to 437, but only until the next census. After 1960 it was back to 435. So, somebody else will have to lose seats to make up for DC's 1 and Puerto Rico's 4 seats. That could impact states that have lost population recently like West Virginia, Mississippi or Louisiana, but also blue states like NY, CT and IL.

The Senate on the other hand can grow and grow and grow. Until we dilute the wankers, like SCOTUS.

[thesquanderer]

28. Interesting point... Which do you think would be harder to do? n/t

[PoliticAverse]

4. Just bring back the "talking filibuster" that rarely stops anything. n/t

[groundloop]

9. If the filibuster survives in any form it should be this

I've changed my thinking on the filibuster, used to think it should stay to protect us when we're the minority but it seems to me that, in reality, all it's done is to hamper progress. When we had the House and Senate at the start of President Obama's first term the filibuster (and a handful of turncoats) kept us from a better healthcare bill.

So yes, either totally get rid of the filibuster or else keep it in the form of a genuine filibuster. If someone is passionate enough to want to filibuster a bill they should have the spine to stand in front of the Senate and talk for hour upon hour.

[raging moderate]

11. Yes! You are right!

It is a travesty to call this current custom a "filibuster." This is nothing like the REAL filibuster as practiced for most of US history. The old talking-marathon filibuster at least required some real effort, knowledge, courage, and commitment on the part of the person doing the filibuster. The subject of the filibuster would be discussed and considered by many people across the country.

[AZ8theist]

18. Sorry, disagree. Just END IT.

Repukes have used it to destroy democracy. Looking at you, Moscow Mitch.

If you revert to a talking filibuster, you'll end up with a Louie Gohmert asshole type pontificating about asparagus or some other nonsense for hours on end. (I know Gohmert is not in the senate, but there are plenty of fucking Repuke ASSHOLES who will abuse the filibuster no matter what the procedure. )

Just kill it to end the slave states over-represented hold on our democratic republic.

[Lasher]

10. Comity is dead in the Senate

When he first joined the Senate a decade ago, I begged Manchin to do what he could to terminate the filibuster. He didn't.

[Jeebo]

12. The filibuster used to be used only sparingly.

As I recall, only once or twice or thrice every two-year legislative session. It was there as a last-gasp stopgap measure for the minority party to stop only those infrequent things that they found REALLY objectionable. And then, 20 years or so ago, Republicons started relentlessly using it to put a halt to EVERYTHING. It's because they consistently misuse that legislative privilege that it needs to be taken away from them, like an irritating toy from a toddler.

I think some Democrats are reluctant to mess with the Senate filibuster rule because they want it to be there when they're in the minority. But the problem with that is Republicons use it much more heavily than Democrats do, so keeping the filibuster rule without changing it benefits Republicons while ham-stringing Democrats. So if Democrats take the Senate on Nov. 3, then yes, they really need to do something about that rule.

I see four options: No change, eliminate it altogether, require filibusterers to actually DO it, like Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", or (and this fourth option is one I have never heard anybody but me mention) filibusters could be allocated like time-outs in a football game, a maximum of four of them during any two-year legislative session, let's say. That would force each party to use it only sparingly when they are in the minority, the way it used to be used. I think I like option no. 4 best.

My two cents' worth.

-- Ron

[cstanleytech]

16. They could also look at passing a rule that allows the House to authorize additional filibusters

but only if it receives 2/3 majority vote and only for the two major political parties in the Senate.

[AZ8theist]

19. Yes, it used to be used sparingly. Just until a "black" man became president...

Then Moscow Mitch started the destruction of our democracy:

[MichMan]

23. Looks like it was in the early 70's that it quadrupled

[SunSeeker]

14. Good. nt

[cstanleytech]

15. Filibuster did little to prevent the Republicans from corrupting the Courts so

we should actually consider this otherwise the Republicans will simply try to do to Biden what they did to Obama.

[Wolf Frankula]

17. It's time to increase the size of the House of Representatives

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says it has to be 435 members. It has been so for 112 years. The population of the United States has almost tripled. Time to increase it to at least 500 members or more.

Wolf

[rockfordfile]

21. I don't agree

[reACTIONary]

31. I do agree.

[Indyfan53]

20. This will backfire.

If we lose control of the senate, and we will since we suck at turning out in midterm elections, imagine what McConnell will do with a simple majority.

Ban abortion
Ban labor unions
Ban marriage equality
Shut down the EPA
Implement nationwide voter suppression tactics
etc

We suck at thinking long term. Bring back the talking filibuster. Make it so that McConnell has to talk his ass off for hours on end.

[paleotn]

27. That is the fear if we lose both houses and the white house.

It is a gamble, but I think it's well worth it. Benefits given are not easily taken away without a huge fight that usually ends the ruling party's hold on Congress and the white house in the next election. Our demographics are changing rapidly, so the fear of a Republican take over like 2016 is muted. Thus Rethugs packing the federal courts. That's their last line of defense from the inevitable. I never thought I'd live to see AZ in play for the Dems. Or a progressive, black woman very narrowly lose the gubernatorial election in GA. CO and VA are now blue. The country is changing.

[ouija]

22. NOW

Is the time for courage.

[honest.abe]

29. Excellent! We need to do this.

Otherwise nothing will change.

[AllaN01Bear]

30. this and the electoral college .

never heard of the wyoming rule .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule