Elizabeth Warren @ewarren It's time to get rid of the filibuster.

[BeckyDem]

Link to tweet

Warren 2020!!!

[comradebillyboy]

1. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I am totally wishy-washy

on the issue.

[BeckyDem]

2. You're not alone. Here is more info that might help, in case you have not read it

yet.


The Democratic debate over filibuster reform, explained

Nobody runs on Senate procedure, but without changing it, nothing is going to happen.
By Matthew Yglesias@[e-mail] Updated Apr 5, 2019, 12:29pm ED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) thinks Democrats should end the filibuster if they regain the majority in the US Senate, and pass legislation by majority rule.

“When Democrats next have power, we should be bold and clear: We’re done with two sets of rules — one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats,” Warren says in advance text of a Friday speech to the National Action Network obtained by CNN. “And that means when Democrats have the White House again, if Mitch McConnell tries to do what he did to President Obama and puts small-minded partisanship ahead of solving the massive problems facing this country, then we should get rid of the filibuster.”

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/5/18241447/filibuster-reform-explained-warren-booker-sanders

[Amishman]

3. I'm opposed, seems too dangerous long term

I'd rather see it restored for all judicial nominees and codified in a way that it cannot be easily removed again

[dansolo]

30. Forget the filibuster for judicial nominees

I think that a supermajority should be required for any lifetime appointments.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

36. I think we should get rid of lifetime appointments

And create a process to limit power they have.

[DrToast]

12. IMO, more Democracy is always a good thing

[Recursion]

4. Oh God no. That's a horrible idea

The filibuster is the only reason we still have the ACA

[LonePirate]

9. The filibuster has nothing to do with why we still have the ACA. Rs do not have 51 votes to kill it.

They tried in 2017 and could not muster 51 Senate votes in their reconciliation bill to kill it.

[tritsofme]

16. Reconciliation muddles the process. They definitely would have settled on repeal plan

if they could have passed it outside of Reconciliation with a simple majority in the Senate.

Just like the 2013 nuclear move has enabled Trump to seat as many appellate judges in three years as President Obama did in eight, this too could backfire in a big way.

[BlueMTexpat]

26. Thanks for setting the

record straight!

[BlueTsunami2018]

5. Yeah, let's give these Republicans the ability to do anything they want.

It’s worked out so well with Supreme Court justices, let’s see what they’d do with far right legislation. 🙄

It seems like a good idea if you’re in power, not so much when you aren’t.

[defacto7]

6. It has its legitimate uses but it should have more

limitations both starting it and ending it. It shouldn't simply be a stall tactic for the hell of it. There should be some political argument of substance and/or an incremental vote majority based on time... I don't know, something to keep it sane. Otherwise get rid of it.

[LonePirate]

7. If we don't have the filibuster what excuse will some use for not passing Democratic legislation?

[bucolic_frolic]

8. McConnell's not even honoring blue slips

I think that's what they call them.

But filibuster was designed to prevent the dictatorship of the majority, to give the minority the right to be heard and some say on issues they feel strongly about. That's democracy. That's compromise. That's free speech.

I do NOT agree with ending the filibuster. I do agree with not having a dictator run the Senate. McConnell blocked Obama judicial nominees, then wouldn't listen to the Democratic minority on the stolen judicial vacancies.

[DrToast]

10. Thank you!

One of the few areas I STRONGLY agree with Sen. Warren on.

[dalton99a]

11. Kill it dead, repeal the tax scam, and expand the court

[turbinetree]

13. Yepper spot on....................

[Cuthbert Allgood]

14. 'Member the time when Dems had the majority in the senate

and the Republicans wanted to get rid of the filibuster?

[PBC_Democrat]

15. I sort of agree

But don’t kill it - change it

Instead of just filing a form - make the party stand and speak continuously to hold the floor.

If the minority party (and at some point we’ll be in the minority again) wants something that bad - let em work for it.

[tritsofme]

20. This system imposes costs on the majority as well.

If there is “one track” the majority cannot move on to other business it finds important, while it can in the case of the current rules.

So while the minority must hold the floor, it also prevents the majority from moving on its other priorities.

[PBC_Democrat]

24. ... and forces dialogue and compromise

They should hold cloture votes periodically

Let the minority pay the price of having to hold the floor
Let the majority pay the price of having their agenda stopped In its tracks

In most cases half a loaf is better than no loaf

[The Valley Below]

17. That's a terrible idea.

[LonePirate]

29. How do you expect to pass any needed legislation then? Or do you not want anything passed?

Please share with us your insight as to how upwards of 10 Republicans would vote for any legislation in a Democratic Senate.

[dansolo]

31. By forcing them to actually stand up and speak

The filibuster was changed so it effectively raises the vote threshold to 60 votes for any bill. The filibuster should be changed back to the way it used to be.

[LonePirate]

34. Forcing them to speak is irrelevant because there are dozens of them available to speak.

Yes, multiple people can speak or take part in a filibuster. It’s not painful for them when they can have 3-4 people talk for a few hours every day while the Senate is in session. This is not some sort of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibuster. Requiring 60 votes prevents much needed legislation from being passed and the refusal to remove the filibuster signals your opposition to this much needed legislation.

[tritsofme]

18. Lots of folks here cheered on the nuclear option in 2013. Now Trump has sat as many appellate judges

in three years as President Obama did in eight.

I am very worried about the unintended consequences of going nuclear, we won’t be in power forever.

[Politicub]

19. It's not wise to float this idea while the GOP controls the senate

I can see the pros and cons. Basically, it will be pro if we control the president and congress... it will be an awful con if the GOP keeps control.

So I think it would be better not to broach this idea during the primary.

[The Mouth]

21. We should have it, but

require the Senators using it to ACTUALLY filibuster. This means NO other Senate business, and someone on the podium, at the lectern 24/7, not merely this 'not enough votes for cloture' crap.

It's an emergency measure, like airbags or water landings, everything else stops because one side has decided and is standing by their belief that this issue is important enough to bring the business of the republic to a standstill.

It has it's place, but not in a 'meh, we can't get votes enough for cloture so f- it' sense.

[tritsofme]

22. This system is in many ways preferable to the minority.

They can stop action on not just the bill they are trying to kill, but all of the majority’s other priorities as well, since they cannot move onto other items.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

23. Elizabeth's right on target, as usual... while we're at it, let's dump the Electoral College too!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[The Mouth]

27. Yeah, right

Let me know how that Constitutional Amendment works out

[StevieM]

25. None of this matters if we have a GOP majority on the Supreme Court.

They are pretty much done with democracy.

Sorry, but the Republicans cannot be allowed to keep the seat they stole, especially given what they plan on doing with it.

[northoftheborder]

28. The President does not have the authority to change Senate rules.

Only the Senate can make it's own rules. It's a good discussion to have, pros and cons.

[Midnightwalk]

32. I don't know

The filibuster has become a way to block any movement on any legislation by the minority without paying any political cost. I think most people see congress can’t do anything and blame both sides without realizing it is the republicans who block all progress.

Having to take unpopular votes might make the republican positions more visible but only if we have a senate leader that is willing to advance legislation. Am I wrong that mcconnel blocks legislation even before getting to a filibuster?

Then there’s the “what happens when we are in the minority”. But if the republicans had a majority in both houses and the presidency AND the will to publicly vote for their agenda wouldn’t they get rid of the filibuster anyway? They got tax cuts through reconciliation. Why didn’t they get rid of the filibuster and push through more of their agenda? I think it was partly because their agenda was too extreme for some of them. Eliminating ACA, social security and medicare might be enough for people to finally wake up, but what a horrible cost.

Something has to be done to make government function again. The senate is already heavily biased against high population states. The filibuster says we have to have 60 seats before we can have a legislative branch that works again.

Reform of some kind is needed. I think we would have our plates full with legislation in the first two years that could be passed through reconciliation. The priority should be getting popular legislation passed however we can so we can retain control after midterms. If we don’t win the senate this whole topic is moot.

[AncientGeezer]

33. Except for that pesky seperation of powers deal...a POTUS can't get rid of it.

The House sets their rules..as does the Senate. POTUS Warren would have zero say.....sounds like tossing chum to me.

Let's say A Democratic majority Senate changed that rule...a Republican Senate Majority could reinstate it just as fast.

The Filibuster serves a purpose...a valuable purpose....we say that with the McCain vote....saved ACA

[Gothmog]

35. This is NOT going to happen

The filibuster really helped Democrats during the first two years of the trump term. There are not the votes to do this

[Jose Garcia]

37. Then perhaps she should stay in the Senate so that

she can vote to end it.