Biden: 'Nothing at all will get done' if filibuster abolished
Source: Politico
During a CNN town hall in Cincinnati, the president was repeatedly pressed on his stance on the legislative filibuster, which establishes a 60-vote threshold to move most bills through the Senate. Biden deflected when an audience member asked him if abolishing the filibuster is the logical next step to address the attack on voting rights what Biden has called the most significant threat to our democracy since the Civil War.
Biden said the abuse of the filibuster is pretty overwhelming, before talking about his decades in the Senate, when members had to hold the floor. The president stuck to his long-standing position and said he supports filibuster reform that would return to those rules, requiring those who oppose a bill to remain physically on the Senate floor in order to block it.
When pressed by CNNs Don Lemon on why the filibuster is worth protecting, Biden said keeping the filibuster is not more important than protecting voting rights. He said that he believes his administration and Congress can pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act without axing the Senate rule one Biden has agreed, as former President Barack Obama put it, is a relic of the Jim Crow era.
Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/21/biden-nothing-done-filibuster-abolished-500502
ancianita
(35,812 posts)I just don't get his stance.
On the one hand, it's got to stay and on the other hand, it threatens democracy?
BumRushDaShow
(127,299 posts)if the tool wasn't there and Democrats were in the minority in the Senate (like we were, literally 6 months ago), then the GOP could ram through every piece of RW detritus they can find to "own the libs", and nothing (save for keeping control of the House and/or Presidency) could stop them.
When we try to "ram things through" we are trying to help the least among us - "the needs of the many outweighing the few, or the one".
The GOP does the opposite, focusing on their own selfish selves and their financial benefactors.
There needs to be a list of subjects that are carved out of that Rule because that's all it is, a "Rule". There's nothing in the Constitution that mandates such a high threshold to proceed to even debate legislation.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)...is that list of things that are ok to ram through would all be progressive, Democratic legislation, while the list of things that can be stopped would be the entire GOP platform.
They would hate to have the rule they can do it, but we cant. They are already doing that with guns. As far as they are concerned, if we make weed legal in states in the face of federal law and we have our states refuse to help the feds enforce immigration, then they feel they can do the same with gun control. Make banned guns legal in their states, like weed, and refuse to enforce the law, like immigration. Guess we are going to have to tell them, that them doing it is wrong; it was right when we did.
BumRushDaShow
(127,299 posts)between what are dubbed "states rights" and what is under "federal jurisdiction" - to directly address your examples.
The passage of legislation that seeks to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her uterus as a "state law" gets compared to something akin to say, what California did - take money from the state's budget surplus, and provide a free lunch to every student in the state, regardless of income.
Those are state laws. Neither of those things are federal laws.
But in each case, there is a desire by those states, to make their legislation "national" (federal), and that is where the hearings and Committee votes come into play to discuss and tweak, and eventually send something to the floor for consideration by the legislative body. And in the Senate, that's where it might die without seeing the light of day, and without even giving a reason why the legislation should or should not even be considered by the rest of the chamber for debate.
In essence, it's not a matter of what is "right" or "wrong" but that it's become a lazy way to keep something from at least being considered, debated, and voted on. So when it comes to the Senate, rather than requiring that 3/5s is needed for the legislation to become law (vs a simple majority), it requires 3/5 to NOT have it automatically declared DOA before it is even looked at or debated.
DemocraticPatriot
(4,170 posts)They don't actually have one now, remember....
except 'whatever Drumph says'
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,538 posts)I think unless Biden can convince the Dems to return to the "talking filibuster" the rule has lost its original purpose, and is just another weapon in the Repugs arsenal to use against the Dems and a Democratic president.
Either weaken the f*ckning rule or quit saying how vitally important the two voting rights bills are. You can't have both at the same time.
Calista241
(5,584 posts)The filibuster saved us from:
A flat tax.
Outlawed Abortion.
Elimination of the IRS.
The ACA.
Republican immigration reform.
Elimination of the EPA.
Elimination of the ATF.
Social Security Reform.
Medicare and Medicaid reform.
To name just a few.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,538 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,299 posts)WaPo had an analysis piece on it recently -
By Philip Bump
National correspondent
January 22, 2021 at 1:53 p.m. EST
(snip)
In 2013, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, but only narrowly. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had 55 votes in his caucus but was repeatedly unable to get presidential nominees confirmed because the Republican minority would force cloture votes. After months of threats and debate, Reid finally used what came to be called the nuclear option: The Democratic majority changed the rules to prevent presidential nominees besides Supreme Court justices from being filibustered. No filibuster, no cloture vote and no 60-vote requirement.Four years later, it was McConnells turn. Now Republicans were in the majority, but he only had 52 votes. Donald Trump had just been elected, and Democrats were eager to demonstrate their opposition to his nominees.
That was particularly true of Trumps nominee to fill a Supreme Court seat that McConnell had held open following the death of Antonin Scalia when Barack Obama was still president. So McConnell nuked the filibuster himself, removing the Supreme Court exception that Reid had included. Neil M. Gorsuch was narrowly confirmed. The Democrats regained the majority on the strength of winning the White House in November and two runoff Senate races in Georgia earlier this month. With control of the House, many Democrats are eager to lower the bar for passing legislation in the Senate by eliminating the filibuster for any legislation, something Democratic leaders have been vague about endorsing.
The imbalance it allows
The Senate is already an institution that distributes power unevenly. States that make up only 16 percent of the countrys population cumulatively are represented by 50 senators, half of the total. Reduce the bar to 41 senators and youre talking about just under 11 percent of the population. Meaning that senators representing a bit over one-10th of the country could block any legislation from passing. In practice, its not quite that bad since the least populous states dont share political alignment.
But if we look at it in terms of presidential votes, states that made up only 13 percent of President Bidens support in 2020 are represented by 50 senators. States that made up only 8.8 percent of the votes he earned control 41 senators. The point, though, is that even achieving a majority in the Senate is already weighted to less-populous states, which often means more Republican ones. Raising the bar for passing legislation means weighting things even more favorably toward those states. That initial imbalance was written into the Constitution, mind you. The filibuster was not and is therefore endlessly under threat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/22/it-is-time-once-again-explain-what-filibuster-is-isnt/
FBaggins
(26,696 posts)Let's assume that your party opposes a particular piece of legislation (and cares enough about it to risk blocking it).
If you control the House and they control the Senate... you just vote it down in the House. You don't filibuster.
If you control the Senate and they control the House... you just vote it down in the Senate. You don't filibuster.
If you control both... you don't let it come up for a vote. You don't filibuster.
If you control neither, but you control the White House... you don't filibuster, you veto it
It's only when the other party controls House/Senate/Presidency that a filibuster really matters.
BumRushDaShow
(127,299 posts)and the trends are established in those data points for when the Rule suddenly skyrocketed into use.
I.e., you had a bunch of RW loons elected in 2010, and more each successive 2 years (in both chambers) who then proceeded to execute a plan that was essentially to block anything that Obama put forth - whether legislation recommendations or appointments.
So in your scenario (where we controlled the Presidency) -
it misses one initial reality where there were actually "swing state" representatives in the (R) House between 2010 and 2018 (around 25 or so), who made up enough votes to actually pass "bipartisan" legislation there to supplement almost all the (D) votes, and then send it to the then-(D) Senate (which was only (D)-controlled until 2014), where it was promptly filibustered by the GOP.
So the party may have "opposed it" but did not have enough "control" over all of their members to kill it before it moved from the House. And thus filibustering (cloture) meaning it never gets to to the point where it could even be "voted down", because it never makes it past the procedural vote, even if it is put on the schedule by a (D) Senate Majority Leader.
With the all-GOP setup (including the Presidency) that only lasted 2 years (2017 - 2018), the filibustering did commence by (D)s, which is what prompted the GOP to use reconciliation for an egregious piece of legislation - the tax cuts for billionaires that passed with a simple majority in the Senate in 2017.
After that, there was not much else left (other than non-controversial stuff) that actually got done and went unscathed through Congress, after which Democrats took the House in 2018 and changed the dynamic.
Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #3)
LastLiberal in PalmSprings This message was self-deleted by its author.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . since the GOP can, the next time it holds a majority, vote to eliminate it altogether (and I would be surprised in the least if they did just that).
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the President on this.
BumRushDaShow
(127,299 posts)that he might be trying to work out a way to soften people like Manchin up. You also have Sinema and some others like Feinstein, who don't want to change the Rule. And one of the biggest defenders of it, is Chris Coons.
There was an interesting opinion piece I found in WaPo done last month that talked about Coons and how he has equivocated, and it seems to match how his fellow former Delawarean Senator-now-President, has handled the subject -
Opinion by Greg Sargent
Columnist
June 23, 2021 at 11:06 a.m. EDT
As a Democrat from Joe Bidens longtime home state of Delaware, Sen. Christopher A. Coons is widely perceived to have a direct line to the president, so his views on whats next after the failure of voting reform deserve careful attention. In an interview with NPR on Wednesday, Coons struck a careful balance. On one hand, he kinda sorta hinted that if GOP obstruction continues, Democrats just might have to reluctantly end the filibuster. On the other, he echoed some of the worst arguments for keeping it.
This ambivalence captures an essential problem among Democrats: They appear to believe the only defensible or safe way they can end or even modify the filibuster is if they are perceived to be getting pushed into it by Republican obstruction, against their will. But this cedes the argument up front. Democrats are still far too reluctant to give serious consideration to filibuster reform as the right thing to do on the merits, let alone to the idea that making a confident, affirmative case for it might be better politics than their oft-relied-upon theater of reluctance.
Every single GOP senator voted Tuesday against allowing any debate on the Democrats voting rights legislation. This didnt merely block debate on the very ambitious For the People Act. It also nixed debate on the more modest compromise offered by Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), which includes some voting protections progressives want, but also national voter ID.
On NPR, Coons alluded to this and issued a warning shot. Coons pointed to bipartisan negotiations over other issues infrastructure, immigration, police reform and suggested that if action failed to materialize, Democrats might act. If all of these come to the same end as the efforts around voting rights, where its blocked 50-50, thatll sharpen the focus on the filibuster, Coons said. That sure sounds like Democrats might be prepared to reform or end the filibuster. And yet, later in the interview, Coons echoed a bad argument in favor of keeping it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/chris-coons-filibuster-warning-npr/
One would also be a fool to reveal your strategy to the media so the enemy knows how to counter it.
And as a note, had he still been in the Senate today, Biden would have been the most senior of them all (including more senior than both Leahy and Ass-ley). So he knows what goes on behind the scenes in that chamber and where the bodies are buried.
Deminpenn
(15,246 posts)in a New York minute if it suited their purposes. Just like they did with confirmation of SCOTUS justices that formerly required 60 votes.
BumRushDaShow
(127,299 posts)And unfortunately we don't have enough in there to be able to absorb a couple nays from our side and still be able to change the Rule with the simple majority.
Harry Reid had it but just barely, back in 2013 -
Susan Davis and Richard Wolf USA TODAY
Published 10:45 a.m. ET Nov. 21, 2013 | Updated 3:06 p.m. ET Nov. 21, 2021
(snip)
Fifty-two Senate Democrats and independents voted to weaken the power of the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees against unanimous GOP opposition. Three Democrats Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Carl Levin of Michigan opposed the change.
The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominees, who are still subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, or to legislation.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/
And you can see what Manchin did back then (the other 2 are no longer in the Senate).
Escurumbele
(3,340 posts)filibuster will increase the lack of confidence in government, that is why when Democrats are in power, like now, but because of the filibuster they are not able to pass legislation where the people can feel it, can see it, then they feel that nothing has been done, so lets vote for the other guy.
The constant obstruction by republicans has a reason, they don't allow Democrats to pass legislature that makes a difference in people's lives because they don't want people to see how good the Democrats are doing in their behalf, and the filibuster makes it very easy for republicans to obstruct.
Get rid of the filibuster, then pass bill after bill to make sure people start feeling good about their government, then the rest is easy.
Miguelito Loveless
(4,438 posts)When Republicans win, they dictate the legislative agenda. When Republicans lose they dictate the legislative agenda.
Voltaire2
(12,624 posts)Which Biden also seems to be shying away from.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,029 posts)Damned if we don't.
groundloop
(11,488 posts)What I got from the article is that he fears that proposing to end the filibuster would give GQPers an excuse to debate endlessly about the filibuster instead of what needs to get done. That's not exactly the same thing as standing up for the filibuster.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)GB_RN
(2,267 posts)That the GOPQ will preserve the legislative filibuster when they next have the trifecta, then they are deluding themselves. Moscow Mitch McConnell (R-Yertle The Turtle) will kill it, day 1. Guaranteed. The Democrats should kill it now, and push through decent, popular legislation, while they can. Otherwise, they are wasting time
bucolic_frolic
(42,666 posts)But due to corporate money, absentee filibustering, waning pressure by voters, and fierce polarization that hollowed out the middle, it's not very relevant anymore.
The rights of the minority are important. That's democracy, that's pluralism. But giving the minority the power to block every issue is not democracy either.
markpkessinger
(8,381 posts). . . And it proved to be impossible. And let's face it, that's what the filibuster has become -- a de facto supermajority requirement. That's why, when the new Constitution was drafted, they made a point to have majority rule as the order of the day.
Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 22, argued against supermajority requirements:
Hamilton saw with perfect clarity what a supermajority requirement would inevitably lead to; indeed, he describes what is currently going on in Congress perfectly! The President is simply wrong about this!
bucolic_frolic
(42,666 posts)The President may be betting that public opinion will finally reassert itself in the Senate if filibuster becomes a visible spectacle on TV once again --- the public riveted to C-Span. But I doubt it can overcome the Senators that are bought and paid for.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)I know better, but sometimes I've got to click anyway....as if it's 'news' or something
Theres no reason to protect it other than you're going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done. Nothing at all will get done. And theres a lot at stake. The most important one is the right to vote, Biden said. Wouldnt my friends on the other side love to have a debate about the filibuster instead of passing the recovery act?
Javaman
(62,439 posts)make the saggy ass repukes talk until they have to piss their pants.
Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)Vinca
(50,170 posts)If roles were reversed, the filibuster would already be gone and they probably would have passed a law reinstating Trump forever and ever and ever. At best the filibuster stops that from happening, but the trade off is nothing gets done.
Deminpenn
(15,246 posts)Without being able to invoke a fillibuster with absolutely no penalty, the Rs would come to the table to negotiate.
Dems who worry about not having the legislative fillibuster when they are in the minority are deluding themselves if they believe the Rs wouldn't dump it quickly if it stood in the way of what they wanted to accomplish.