End the filibuster?

[lpetrich]

...
I don't grumble about it being ineffective though. I grumble about it being too effective and how the few remaining impediments are little more than speed bumps.

So your ideal is a gouvernement fainéant? Something like monarques fainéants like Queen Elizabeth II.

That's taken from  Roi fainéant - "do-nothing king" - what the later Merovingian kings were, kings of early medieval France.

 

[Swammerdami]

Counting King and Sanders there are 48 Democrats, so to change the rules we need only to disqualify the votes of four Senators from the QOP-Manchin camp. Can't the President of the Senate simply declare that Senators in Contempt of Congress are not allowed to vote? That's one down (Kevin McCarthy), 3 to go. Surely rebel Senators weren't allowed to vote during the First Civil War.

BTW, I'm not sure why McCarthy chose to be in contempt since he simply "has nothing more to add." Why can't he just appear, take an oath, and repeat "Refuse to answer because it would incriminate me" like other criminals do?


Can you imagine the outrage (and ruptured rectums) if the "Witch of Benghazi" had refused to testify?

 

[Patooka]

I don't grumble about it being ineffective though. I grumble about it being too effective and how the few remaining impediments are little more than speed bumps.

There are, literally, around 20-100 people left in the entire world who would give a flying fuck about such infinitesimal semantics.

 

[Elixir]

Can you imagine the outrage (and ruptured rectums) if the "Witch of Benghazi" had refused to testify?

They would likely lock her up, IMO.
The problem with your otherwise solid payola plan, is hiding the payments. We know McConnell has parlayed his power position into tens of millions, but do we know who paid him how much to do what?
I sure don’t. But it’s unlikely that it was all paid to him by legislators. Maybe lobbyists delivering paper bags of cash?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't grumble about it being ineffective though. I grumble about it being too effective and how the few remaining impediments are little more than speed bumps.

There are, literally, around 20-100 people left in the entire world who would give a flying fuck about such infinitesimal semantics.

You think the difference between "ineffective" and "too effective" is semantics.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't grumble about it being ineffective though. I grumble about it being too effective and how the few remaining impediments are little more than speed bumps.

There are, literally, around 20-100 people left in the entire world who would give a flying fuck about such infinitesimal semantics.

You think the difference between "ineffective" and "too effective" is semantics.

If the less government the better, then the ideal government is none: anarchy.

 

[lpetrich]

Democrats' filibuster gambit unravels | TheHill

“I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country,” Sinema said during a Senate floor speech watched by several of her GOP colleagues. “Eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy.”

Why 60 votes and not some other number? 70? 80? 90? Unanimity? The Founders had plenty of experience with unanimity in the pre-independence Continental Congress, and it was not very good.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) piled on Thursday afternoon, saying that “I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster” and that doing so would “pour fuel onto the fire of political whiplash and dysfunction that is tearing this nation apart.”

Neville Chamberlain would have been proud.

Biden acknowledged that reality as he left the Senate Democratic caucus lunch, telling reporters, “The honest-to-God answer is I don’t know whether we can get this done.”

White House press secretary Jen Psaki vowed that the White House would keep pushing until the Senate voted, however, saying that “we’re gonna keep fighting until the votes are had.”

Sinema scuttles hopes for filibuster reform | TheHill

As Sinema was speaking, several GOP senators were on the floor listening to her speech: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sens. John Thune (S.D.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Susan Collins (Maine), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Bill Hagerty (Tenn.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Thom Tillis (N.C.).

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), who spoke before Sinema, and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) were at their desks for Sinema’s speech.

She's the Benedict Arnold of the progressive movement and the Democratic Party. JM I can understand, but her???

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've given mine if that helps.

What's your opinion on the filibuster, Jason?

Sure you have. Anyway,

My opinion is that anything that impedes legislation is good. I don't care which party is in charge of the Senate, as long as the minority party has the filibuster. My only worry is that a party might get 67%.

That used to be a reasonable approach. Likewise, I used to feel that having the House and Senate held by opposite parties was good.

However, the Republicans are no longer being reasonable. It's not about stopping extremes, it's about stopping anything other than their party line. These days they only represent hardline Republicans, not America.

 

[Patooka]

I don't grumble about it being ineffective though. I grumble about it being too effective and how the few remaining impediments are little more than speed bumps.

There are, literally, around 20-100 people left in the entire world who would give a flying fuck about such infinitesimal semantics.

You think the difference between "ineffective" and "too effective" is semantics.

No, that is what you think. You also think political slogans and paying Bioshock for the first time equals political ideology.

Me? It just says to me you bought your first Fisher Price "My First Opinion". And that you kept that until well into your 30s and then rationalised with yourself saying, "well it must have some value now". So good luck with that and have fun kiddo.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I don't grumble about it being ineffective though. I grumble about it being too effective and how the few remaining impediments are little more than speed bumps.

There are, literally, around 20-100 people left in the entire world who would give a flying fuck about such infinitesimal semantics.

You think the difference between "ineffective" and "too effective" is semantics.

No, that is what you think. You also think political slogans and paying Bioshock for the first time equals political ideology.

Me? It just says to me you bought your first Fisher Price "My First Opinion". And that you kept that until well into your 30s and then rationalised with yourself saying, "well it must have some value now". So good luck with that and have fun kiddo.

Having been caught out completely misinterpreting my post, and confusing "too effective" with "ineffective" and calling it "meaningless semantics", you now blame me for your mistake.

 

[Trausti]

 

[lpetrich]

Manchin and Sinema have been allowed to lie about the filibuster - Raw Story - Celebrating 17 Years of Independent Journalism

We’ve now reached a critical stage in which President Biden went full force in attacking those standing in the way of voting rights, comparing them to the racists of the past, including George Wallace. And the president, in his powerful speech in Georgia yesterday in which he demanded the Senate create a filibuster carve-out for voting rights, didn’t distinguish between Republicans and those two Senate Democrats, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who refuse to back a carve-out.

JM:

[The filibuster is] the tradition of the Senate here in 232 years now. … We need to be very cautious what we do. … That’s what we’ve always had for 232 years. That’s what makes us different than any place else in the world.

A demonstrably false statement. Some fact checking:

The filibuster, contrary to Manchin’s suggestion, is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, which went into effect 232 years ago…
…[I]t was decades — 1856 — before the Senate established a right of unlimited debate…The word “filibustering” was first used on the Senate floor to connote unlimited debate in 1853, according to [legal scholars Catherine] Fisk and [Erwin] Chemerinsky. But it was not until the 1880s that filibusters were successful in derailing legislation…

Chad Pergram on Twitter: "Manchin on the filibuster. Says it's been "The tradition of the Senate here in 232 years now..we need to be very cautious what we do..That's what we've always had for 232 years. That's what makes us different than any place else in the world." / Twitter
then
Max Kennerly on Twitter: "232 years ago, in 1790, a simple majority could end any debate. ..." / Twitter

232 years ago, in 1790, a simple majority could end any debate.

The current form of filibuster that Manchin is protecting—in which votes can't happen until 60 Senators agree—didn't exist until 1975. Hundreds of exceptions have been made to it, including one last month.

The filibuster arose by accident: in 1805, the Senate streamlined its rules at the urging of Aaron Burr. Nobody thought they were creating a vehicle for obstruction, and no one used it that way until 1837, after the Framers were dead.
The History of the Filibuster at the Brookings Institution

The first filibuster, in 1837, failed. It included a Senator being dragged into the Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms then dragged back out again when he got saucy with the presiding officer. “Am I not permitted to speak in my own defense?” he cried, and the answer was no.

Up until the 20th Century, most filibusters failed. They required holding the Senate floor and compliance with every rule. An 1893 filibuster on a silver bill went on for 46 days and failed. A 1908 filibuster failed by an accidental yielding to a Senator who had stepped out.

Even after the initial cloture rule in 1917, filibusters were still rare, and still typically failed except in the lone area of civil rights laws.

When Joe Manchin was born in 1947, the Senate still operated almost entirely by majority-rule.

The few successful filibusters had a theme: anti-lynching legislation in 1922, 1935, and 1938. Anti-poll-tax legislation in 1942, 1944, 1946, 1948, and 1962. Civil rights legislation in 1946, 1950, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1972, and 1975. Some tradition, huh?

The very first time in American history that Senators could block legislation *without* indefinitely holding the Senate floor (while also complying with all Senate rules) was 1972: (article at the Cornell University Law Library)

It's all been downhill since then.

There's no "tradition" to the current filibuster, and it has been constantly modified. The only real Senate tradition, as Byrd himself recognized, was that a majority could invoke cloture whenever it wanted by changing the rules. Which it has. Repeatedly. Like last month.

There's no principled or historical justification for the current filibuster in which GOP priorities—judges, tax cuts, drilling on fed land, regulatory rollbacks—go to a majority vote but voting rights, minimum wage, and immigration can't get a vote until 60 Senators agree.

 

[Elixir]

Looks like it’s going to be left to the Republicans to do away with the filibuster again, once they take over. Which they will, thanks to their insiders in the Dem Party.

 

[ZiprHead]

Mansinema.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Consider why they objected:

Civil Rights Leaders Urge Opposition to Inept Senate Policing Bill

naacp.org

It appears to be a Republican effort to pretend to deal with the problem.

 

[lpetrich]

‘Needs to resign or be removed from office’: Sinema scorched for ‘stupidest speech by a Democrat’ - Raw Story - Celebrating 17 Years of Independent Journalism

"We must address the disease itself, the disease of division to protect our democracy," Sinema told the mostly-Republican audience. "It cannot be achieved by one party alone."

"We need robust, sustained strategies that put aside party labels and focus on our democracy because these challenges are bigger than party affiliation. We must commit to a long term approach as serious as the problems we seek to solve. One that prioritizes listening and understanding one that embraces making progress on shared priorities and finding common ground on issues where we hold differing and diverse views."

The two voting rights bills – which Sinema claimed to support – have the support of the majority of Americans. Her call for "finding common ground" that she claims is necessary ignores the very will of the people she was elected to serve. Instead, she is seeking the approval of just Republican Party lawmakers.

Democrats of all stripes, from political experts to casual social media commentators blasted her.

What does she plan to do? Collect all these criticisms and use them in her next campaign as "proof" that she is a sensible moderate who rejects all this Democratic extremism?

 

[lpetrich]

Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 1/13/22
He mentioned KS in 2010 saying that one can use reconciliation to get around the filibuster, and some 160 filibuster exceptions have been created over the last half-century, most recently for the debt ceiling.

Then from that recent KS interview,

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SINEMA: I share the disappointment of many that we`ve not found more support on the other side of the aisle for legislative responses to state level voting restrictions. I wish that were not the case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

What a posture of helplessness. Did her voters send her to DC to wring her hands all day?

O`DONNELL: Disappointed. She`s disappointed in Republicans. When Kyrsten Sinema ran for the United States Senate, she did not say that she would bring all her legislative and policy goals in the United States Senate to the Republican leader of the Senate and try to get Republican approval of her agenda. That`s not what she told Arizona voters.

But that is her position now. Republicans have to approve everything Kyrsten Sinema wants to do, or she won`t even try to do it. She will just stand at her desk in the United States Senate and be disappointed.

And she will give up if Republicans don`t want to do what she wants to do. She will give up. That`s what she`s saying today. President Joe Biden today said he is not giving up. President Joe Biden attended the Democrats` luncheon today where it is reported that Kyrsten Sinema sat looking at her phone for most of the time.

Senator Sinema`s speech on the Senate floor before the luncheon did not dissuade Senator Jon Ossoff from delivering a passionate talk during that lunch about changing the voting rules, and that speech received a standing ovation in that moment.

 

[lpetrich]

Schumer finally reveals his plan to get voting rights passed — and get Manchin and Sinema on board - Raw Story - Celebrating 17 Years of Independent Journalism
noting
Manu Raju on Twitter: "New - In memo, ..." / Twitter

New - In memo, Sen. Chuck Schumer tells Democrats this is the process to change the rules
- The House will act first. The chamber will send over a piece of legislation that includes both the Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act. House Rules may act tonight
— Once the House passes the bill, it will come over in the form of a “message from the House.” That allows them to skip the first procedural vote in the Senate and get onto the bill with 51 votes.
- To get off the bill and move to final passage, they would need 60 votes to break a filibuster, and getting 60 votes won’t happen.
- At that point, Schumer would likely move to change rules — but Manchin and Sinema are opposed
- This process will take several days to play out

Schumer: “Of course, to ultimately end debate and pass the voting rights legislation, we will need 10 Republicans to join us – which we know from past experience will not happen – or we will need to change the Senate rules as has been done many times before.”

Rather ingenious, I must say.

 

[blastula]

What's your point? Did anybody claim Democrats never used it?

 

[Jarhyn]

I've given mine if that helps.

What's your opinion on the filibuster, Jason?

So, what words might be offered to describe succinctly "those who want a thing of others but never see fit to offer it of themselves"?

Personally: I would see fit to make them stand and not campaign if they wish to filibuster, and make them stand present if they wish to count against cloture.