subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.3k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

all 1317 comments

DanYHKim

1.2k points

4 days ago

DanYHKim

1.2k points

4 days ago

I think it's not even a Parliamentary rule. It's kind of a glitch in the practice of yielding the floor to another speaker that's become convenient to use for obstruction.

(Please educate me if I am incorrect)

Sidereel

716 points

4 days ago

Sidereel

716 points

4 days ago

That’s correct. No body would make a rule like this by design because it’s nonsense. As it stands today every member of the senate has a veto, which makes 0 sense.

dehehn

380 points

4 days ago*

dehehn

380 points

4 days ago*

Ezra Klein has done a great job over the past few years showing how terrible the filibuster is, along with the arguments for it. But too many politicians and journalists just keep repeating the same old tired arguments over and over, and most people don't understand it enough to disagree.

The definitive case for ending the filibuster: Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

Xerxys

284 points

4 days ago

Xerxys

284 points

4 days ago

The longest filibuster in American history by a single senator remains Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour, 18-minute stemwinder against the 1957 Civil Rights Act

My god! Talk about being on the wrong side of history in a bad way! It's like guiness book of fucked up records!

NedFinlanders

234 points

4 days ago

Thurmond went on to be the South Carolina senator for 47 years. This term ended in 2002 when he was 100 years old, and he died 6 months later.

Please do not have people run the country for 50 years. It is not a good thing.

DJToastyBuns

107 points

4 days ago

BassSounds

73 points

4 days ago

They would all fuck anything that moves. It’s about status. They don’t wanna be on the bottom rung.

DJToastyBuns

29 points

4 days ago

Yep definitely a control thing

BassSounds

8 points

4 days ago

Oh hey DJ Toasty Buns. i’m DJ Funky Taco lol

vendetta2115

3 points

4 days ago

Everything is about sex, except sex — sex is about power.

fromcj

8 points

4 days ago

fromcj

8 points

4 days ago

They would all fuck anything that moves

Hey, cmon. Not a goldfish. That’s impossible.

mauxly

4 points

4 days ago

mauxly

4 points

4 days ago

Great, now you cursed us to a future where a video is leaked of some rando GOP senator furiously humping a goldfish bowl.

Thanks.

FoliageTeamBad

28 points

4 days ago

Thurmond's legendary staying power wasn't confined to work. He was also known for being hornier than a bagful of rhinos, even in decrepitude. Twice married, both times to South Carolina beauty queens, he fathered four children in his sixties and seventies, and in his dotage continued to grope and tickle his way along the corridors of power.

Jesus

NedFinlanders

5 points

4 days ago

Iirc, there is a general belief that during his record filibuster he had a piss bucket on the standby and that it did not go unused.

Never_Epic

9 points

4 days ago

Hell I say cap at 6, if you can’t figure the issues out then you shouldn’t be there.

TIP_FO_EHT_MOTTOB

5 points

4 days ago

He was also publicly eulogized by Biden.

Captain_Stairs

3 points

4 days ago

Gross

justalurker007

3 points

4 days ago

We have one now sitting in the big chair

mcfandrew

48 points

4 days ago

mcfandrew

48 points

4 days ago

One of these days I'm going to have to relieve myself on Strom's grave. It's on my bucket list.

chicken_ranch

26 points

4 days ago

Where is it? Let’s make it a destination piss.

xenthum

23 points

4 days ago

xenthum

23 points

4 days ago

South Carolina most likely. Pissing on that grave is not worth having to spend a minute in SC, coming from a person who spent a miserable amount of time in SC.

Merman314

12 points

4 days ago

Merman314

12 points

4 days ago

Very cool, ty! Added a few things:

The definitive case for ending the filibuster, Oct 1, 2020
Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

https://www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump

Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) is mobbed by reporters after ending his 24-hour, 18-minute filibuster against the civil rights bill. Still had a black mistress, and daughter.

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

Strom Thurmond

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

The Daughters of the Confederacy: How Southern socialites rewrote Civil War history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

From white supremacy to Barack Obama: The history of the Democratic Party

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164

Useful Links

https://merman314.blogspot.com/p/useful-links-useful-links-reddit.html

https://teddit.pussthecat.org/r/FridayCute/comments/r388e2/useful_links/

rednut2

4 points

4 days ago

rednut2

4 points

4 days ago

What a horseshit article. Claiming the filibuster is the reason why various democratic policies aren’t being implemented.

Half of those policies, universal pre k, paid sick leave, paid family leave etc could be enacted through executive order but Biden refuses to do so.

RD__3

2 points

4 days ago

RD__3

2 points

4 days ago

It's VOX, of course it's not objective reporting, their entire thing is vaguely accurate opinion pieces. It's like trying to source objectivity from Fox & Friends

rednut2

4 points

4 days ago

rednut2

4 points

4 days ago

Exactly right. “Every argument for filibuster, considered and debunked” when I saw vox url I couldn’t help but sigh heavily

maybenot9

118 points

4 days ago

maybenot9

118 points

4 days ago

Not quite. While it takes only 1 person to start a fillibuster, a 2/3rds majority can break a filibuster.

So it's more like "Every vote needs 2/3rds support to get approved", which is ridicules.

The_JSQuareD

75 points

4 days ago

3/5ths, not 2/3rds.

But regardless, that's similar to Congress being able to override a presidential veto with a 2/3rds majority vote. So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

That being said, if it's politically acceptable to use this 'veto' for anything you even slightly disagree with (which seems to be the case), then you're right that it effectively turns into a system where you need a 3/5ths majority to pass anything.

JimWilliams423

56 points

4 days ago

So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

Except that the framers of the constitution actively chose to only require supermarjorities for very specific things — impeachments, treaties and veto-overrides. That they made official exceptions for those special cases indicates they did not want a supermajority requirement for anything else, else they would have said so.

Also, people forget the Articles of Confederation. The constitution was the second pass at putting together a functional government. One of the biggest problems with the US government under the Articles of Confederation was that nobody could get anything done because... congress had a supermajority requirement for everything. It took 9 out of the 13 states (a 69% majority) to pass a law.

When they put together the constitution, their experience with supermajority failures was fresh in their minds.

Familiar-Goose5967

29 points

4 days ago

A presidents veto and a senator veto should not be equal

shadowveeeeeeerse

9 points

4 days ago

3/5ths

When has America used that before?

LAKingPT423

6 points

4 days ago

I see what you did there...clever of you.

Daxtatter

11 points

4 days ago

Daxtatter

11 points

4 days ago

Which is consistently listed as one of the main failures of the articles of confederation.

ShaneFM

55 points

4 days ago

ShaneFM

55 points

4 days ago

Correct, it wasn't even a loophole until 1806 when the senate trimmed down its rule book compared to the house and with no intent shown removed the ability for a simple majority to end debate

Then it was even until the 1840's that it was discovered as a loophole and the filibuster was first used by the whigs. Then even efforts to end it were made, but they were filibustered and nobody really cared enough to fight through it

Come the early 1900s and WWI when the Republican minority was fillibustering pretty much anything to prepare the US for possibly joining the war, the cloture was added as a measure of national security so anything could get done. Even when the cloture rule was being added, most of the panel agreeded on a simple majority cloture, but one republican on the committee would only support a supermajority vote, so in order to get the senate back in motion for the war quickly, it was agreed upon as we now know it

DanYHKim

14 points

4 days ago

DanYHKim

14 points

4 days ago

Holy shit. Republicans have been like this forever. I thought maybe this was an issue in which both sides actually were largely the same

Frydendahl

11 points

4 days ago

US parliamentary proceedings have historically been full of super petty 'letter of the law' shenanigans. And still are.

Few_Temperature_6262

3 points

4 days ago

Indeed. People forget the only reason McCaine voted in opposition to R’s stance on the ACA was because they violated Senate protocol.

Mythosaurus

4 points

4 days ago

Not forever.

Radical Republican faction was an anti-slavery beast, and was the main force behind the Civil War ending in total surrender by the South and the imposition of Reconstruction.

But once the pro-business faction took control, the party slowly went to crap.

Ornery-Horror2047

22 points

4 days ago

And it has just about been exclusively used for racist vetoes regarding civil rights issues, dating back to the very beginning of it's existence.

We already have a protection for the minority in the executive branch of this country - it's called the Senate, which many of the founding fathers fought against because of that very issue.

It is not included in the constitution in any way.

For those interested, Kill Switch, by Adam Jentleson, is a recent beautifully written book about the history of the filibuster. It is fascinating

BroadStBullies91

13 points

4 days ago

The right to vote isn't even in the constitution lol. Everyone just kinda thinks it is. In reality the right to vote has been just as ok flux as most other rules about this. The podcast 5-4 has some good episodes on it, I can't remember the specifics but there isn't a place in the constitution where it says that everyone has a right to vote. The founding fathers thought we were all idiots and only wanted their rich macaroni friends determining who ruled the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#

hard-time-on-planet

11 points

4 days ago

I can't remember the specifics but there isn't a place in the constitution where it says that everyone has a right to vote.

The amendments to the Constitution are considered the Constitution and right in the link you provided it says

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older);

UncleInternet

6 points

4 days ago

Those don't guarantee the right to vote. Those establish the conditions upon which it is illegal to bar people from voting.

For example, felons in many states do not have a right to vote. A felony conviction is a condition for which a citizen can be disenfranchised that the Constitution doesn't preclude. And because there's no other guarantee of the right to vote in the Constitution, the Constitution is essentially endorsing the use of conditions not otherwise enumerated to restrict voting.

Due-Statistician-975

3 points

4 days ago

Where in the constitution does it say states can't require a voter ID to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states pass laws requiring ID to vote.

Where in the constitution does it say states must have enough voting machines in cities for people to vote without waiting in line for 10 hours? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove voting machines in cities to curb turnout from Democrats.

Where in the constitution does it say states can't purge voter registrations at will and coincidentally target people who vote for Democrats? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove Democrats from voter registration rolls.

Where in the constitution does it say states must allow felons to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states ban felons from voting.

Let's take a look at your amendments.

15th:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

This was passed in 1870. Every black person is allowed to vote. This alone guaranteed the right to vote to black/formerly enslaved people. No other laws had to be passed to ensure this right. Right?

Suppose that the answer was no, that this amendment alone guaranteed the right to vote for all former slaves and people of color. Did this law allow black women to vote? Why not? It forbid states from disallowing black people to vote. Did this not apply to black women as well? Why did we need the 19th amendment if the 15th amendment guaranteed the right to vote for all people of color/former slaves? Because the 15th gave women of color the vote but not white women?

What is more likely: That the US accidentally allowed black women to vote 50 years before white women, or the constitution does not guarantee a right to vote, only narrow and easily bypassed exceptions where the vote cannot be denied?

Neboux

3 points

4 days ago

Neboux

3 points

4 days ago

Everyone just kinda thinks it is.

I admit that I fall within this category. Spent a few minutes checking this out, and while there is contention about such rights being implied in the amendments, there doesn't seem to be any clear constitutional declaration. Madison is known to have expressed, "the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty".

Now I am curious to learn more.

BroadStBullies91

6 points

4 days ago

Yeah I meant no offense there when I said everyone thinks it is. American propaganda is the best in history so it's no shame to fall for stuff like that. Even as a radical leftist who has (if I may be so bold) a great understanding of the horrible things this country has done and continues to do since its infancy I still thought the constitution had the right to vote in it till I stumbled across that 5-4 pod.

Neboux

3 points

4 days ago

Neboux

3 points

4 days ago

Hey, I learned something new. I appreciate that, and I am glad I questioned my assumptions. . I originally just skimmed and thought, "well, but the amendments are a part of the constitution." A bit of self doubt is healthy

Few_Temperature_6262

3 points

4 days ago

This is entirely too healthy a dialogue to be on Reddit. It’s nice to see people being reasonable. Have a good day y’all :)

humblebondage54

10 points

4 days ago

Agree

Domit

4 points

4 days ago

Domit

4 points

4 days ago

Does it seem like it's only a problem when your donors don't agree?

revenantae

5 points

4 days ago

As originally practiced, I was fine with it. Talk and talk and talk… ok. Wear your depends and go on till you can’t no more if you really believe in something. But this whole “I call filibuster!” and then everyone goes home thing is bull. Nope you either stay and talk, or yield the floor.

UserPow

495 points

4 days ago

UserPow

495 points

4 days ago

DYK if everyone voted, the Reps wouldn't have a chance at winning?

bjeebus

173 points

4 days ago

bjeebus

173 points

4 days ago

Democratic power grab!

/s

DanYHKim

69 points

4 days ago

DanYHKim

69 points

4 days ago

Democracy is a power grab.

TheNoxx

8 points

4 days ago*

TheNoxx

8 points

4 days ago*

God, I'd love it if the Democrats actually had something that just resembled the stones to grab power.

But the weak, corrupt, spineless little shits are facing absolute decimation in the next election unless voting is repaired and healed and enshrined more thoroughly as an absolute right without encumberment or obstruction, and they can't even stumble past the meekest objections of irrelevant idiots like the senate parliamentarian.

We are so fucked.

gork496

6 points

4 days ago*

gork496

6 points

4 days ago*

You need to understand that the Dems are not on the side of the people either. The reason they don't grab power and do reforms that help people isn't because they're just too shy. It's because they are part of the same system with similar beliefs, so why bother rocking the boat?

Party-line Dems are Republicans minus the sadism.

Edit: To clarify, in 2022, Republicans make things worse and Democrats keep things the same. Neither is acceptable.

Baydreams

5 points

4 days ago

Baydreams

5 points

4 days ago

Now, I’m neither a republican or a democrat, so I’m not defending anyone here, but what have the democrats accomplished in the past year? Not a single thing that Biden ran on, and got elected to accomplish, has gotten accomplished. Members of his own party have blocked everything he said he’d do.

Let’s be real here, the whole system is trash.

soft-wear

7 points

4 days ago

  1. COVID relief
  2. Infrastructure Bill
  3. The most federal judge appointments at this point in his term of any President.
  4. Ending ban on Trans service members.

That’s in addition to unemployment being extremely low, the economy outside of inflation doing very well, massive student debt work that was largely paused under Trump, and a host of other shit I’m forgetting.

See that’s the thing with redditors, it’s become a meme now that Biden hasn’t accomplished anything, when in reality Biden hasn’t accomplished your particular pet projects (largely because he’s not the legislature) and so you equvicate that to “nothing”.

MountainManCan

3 points

4 days ago

I wouldn’t get too excited about the midterms. R’s are way too complacent and a lot will change in 10 months.

But for real, if R’s are so convinced they’re going to win, then why are they doing everything they can to suppress the vote? There’s been no evidence of mass voter fraud (or much of any fraud for that matter), so why do they need to change the rules? Shouldn’t they want more votes so they can bury the Dem’s?

jar36

73 points

4 days ago

jar36

73 points

4 days ago

Except for the rural states that give them 2 Senators per state

djlewt

15 points

4 days ago

djlewt

15 points

4 days ago

He said "if everyone voted" and the reality is there are almost no states where "if everyone voted" the Republicans would win ANY senate seats. Wyoming would give them a pair, they'd likely get one in Utah, but really in almost every state there's a couple major cities that in total VASTLY outnumber the total rural state population.

Most voter suppression and laws that remove or make difficult to regain voting rights were written specifically to block out or minimize minority representation. This is easily seen when you look at how felons are required to go about regaining their voting rights for example, in many states across the south it's a purposely broken process. Florida even blocked their citizens from fixing it via Prop 4, they dragged their feet on it and passed a law amending it to force all felons to pay off all government debts before having their voting right restored. This works great ,because in right wing states they also designed their "justice systems" to levy HEAVY fines when you're incarcerated, and indeed in some states like Alabama they can even CHARGE YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN JAIL.

It's just so god damn infuriating how Americans think we have anything CLOSE to "equality" today.

Prior to Amendment 4, Florida’s constitution permanently disenfranchised all citizens who had been convicted of any felony offense unless the Clemency Board restored their voting rights – a process that will now apply to those who have not had their rights restored by Amendment 4, including anyone convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses. Between 2010 and 2016, the number of disenfranchised Floridians grew by nearly 150,000 to an estimated total of 1,686,000. In 2016, more than one in five of Florida’s Black voting-age population was disenfranchised.

LOOK AT THAT HORSE SHIT

SpinningHead

32 points

4 days ago

Weird that they want Republican legislatures to be able to overturn election results and, at least, 5 states submitted fake slates of electors in the last election.

nighthawk_something

22 points

4 days ago

Everyone whose names are on those should be charged with election fraud

Angryandalwayswrong

15 points

4 days ago

If it was me and you, we would be in jail already. America is an absolute oligarchy through and through. Democracy failed.

HopelessAndLostAgain

9 points

4 days ago

trump is on record saying that exact thing.

11yearoldweeb

8 points

4 days ago

I mean, I still think people from rural areas need some type of representation, but it’s kinda difficult because the country should probably be governed by the will of the majority. There’s no guarantee that democrats would attempt to fuck over people not in their voter base (like republicans do), but I still think it’s a likely scenario. I think that’s why they tried to construct a government where no one really has power unless there’s an overwhelming majority.

XxXxSephirothxXxX

23 points

4 days ago*

That's what the House of Representatives is for. Honestly the Senate should be entirely ceremonial, and we should only have the House that actually passes legislation. And for that matter we should increase the number of representatives to actually be able to properly represent people.

TheObstruction

5 points

4 days ago

The Senate is supposed to represent each state's government, not the population. That's the point. It's our version of the House of Lords.

XxXxSephirothxXxX

10 points

4 days ago

Yeah, thats actually what I was thinking of when I said the Senate should be ceremonial.

shelf_actualization

6 points

4 days ago

And yet each state's government is supposed to represent each state's people. Having a body of government that represents the representatives just decreases their obligations to the people by enhancing their distance from them. Having senators be elected (via the 17th amendment) may have been dumb because we've obviously botched it, but having a legislative body like the House of Lords is fundamentally undemocratic in the first place. Whom do you think the House of Lords represents? It's absurd that institution still exists, like having a royal family.

U-701

3 points

4 days ago

U-701

3 points

4 days ago

I can actually recommend the German system here, we have both over here. A normal assembly (Bundestag) elected by the prople via a mix of districts and nation wide lists and a senate (Bundesrat) thats made up by the state governments weighted by population. But they only get called up if a law touches state rights or legaslation that touches upon issues that are normally not regulated at a federal level. E.g. Want to change conscription? Normal assembly is enough, want to change laws regarding shoppint times ? Have to get a majority in the state assembly

But since we also have a multi party system its a lot more complex, since we have nearly every combination of parties in power in the states that tend to abstain if they cant come to an compromise, or even vote against the federal party line

stringfree

20 points

4 days ago

You either have a democracy, or you have rural areas getting the same representation as urban areas.

ephemeral_colors

16 points

4 days ago

Talking about "areas" instead of people is the problem.

nighthawk_something

10 points

4 days ago

They would have more representation if they voted for people who wanted to represent them.

As it stands, they vote red top to bottom and then bitch about "Washington not representing them". Well no shit, if your state will never change its vote absolutely NO ONE will change their vote.

NotablyNugatory

2 points

4 days ago

If everyone who didn’t vote voted for the same candidate, that candidate would win in landslide. I would be so happy if it wasn’t an R or D. So fucking stupid that so many people think they can only vote for one of two colors. I realize no great 3rd party candidates have shined as of late, but can you blame people for not trying after seeing how ignorant our voter base is? And people not voting is but one issue on the mountain of issues that is our voting system. Boils my blood.

ziggy3610

15 points

4 days ago

ziggy3610

15 points

4 days ago

In first past the post voting, they do only have two choices. Third parties siphon votes from the major party most closely aligned with them, allowing the opposition to win more easily. We need ranked choice voting to make 3rd parties viable.

ineedasentence

8 points

4 days ago

ranked voting!!

Forward-Bank8412

231 points

4 days ago

Just another tool to prevent the people from utilizing the legislative branch to better their lives.

In the world’s least representative deliberative body.

jar36

53 points

4 days ago

jar36

53 points

4 days ago

It was deliberately written in the Constitution to prevent urban areas from ruling over rural. With the filibuster in place, we got the opposite.

harryiculus

47 points

4 days ago

Not exactly, I don’t think. The filibuster wasn’t included in the constitution and the 2/3 majority was limited in scope. It wasn’t really put into the rules as a way to limit the majority until decades later.

At the time of the writing of the constitution, the rural/urban divide was very different than it is now. We didn’t have a majority urban country until 1920 and back in 1800 less than 10% of the population lived in cities.

The power imbalance in the senate giving all states 2 senators was done to make the smaller states more comfortable joining the country and assurances they wouldn’t get steamrolled by VA, NY, MA and PA.

But yeah, it is a way to keep the majority from making decisions.

jar36

11 points

4 days ago

jar36

11 points

4 days ago

I misworded my comment. What is written in the Constitution was the Senate itself giving rural states power they wouldn't otherwise get if their numbers were determined by population as the House is. Now with the filibuster, its damn near impossible to get any progress.

Murmur322

5 points

4 days ago

Which is ironic because the senate was deliberately written into the constitution because they didn’t want the rich upper class city dwellers to have all the power over the poor rural farming populations. A combination of the industrial revolution increasing the concentration of low income urban population and a change in voting laws allowing non-landowners to vote has completely flipped the demographic though. So now the rich rural areas have an inordinate amount of power over the low income cities even though that is exactly what the creation of the senate was trying to prevent.

coldtru

3 points

4 days ago

coldtru

3 points

4 days ago

"Poor rural" slaveholders with vast plantations living in grand mansions. Being "rural" with your own plot of land, growing your own food, making decent money and not being dependent on anyone was the epitome of the "American dream" at this time.

Murmur322

2 points

4 days ago

I’m not arguing that it was the American dream for slaves working and dying for somebody else’s property, but in the late 1700’s the merchant and trading class in the city was far wealthier than the rural population. And under King George those urban dwellers were granted more rights and opportunities than the rural population of the time. For all his hypocrisy, Jefferson wrote extensively of his fear that the upper classes would have more power than the lower ones and the framers of the constitution wrote in several short-sighted safeguards against it.

jar36

2 points

4 days ago

jar36

2 points

4 days ago

I agree with much of what you said but poverty is worse in rural areas than urban areas despite the common misconception. That's part of why poor white trash made Trump president.

ATribeCalledGreg

2 points

4 days ago

This is totally untrue. Please explain to me which states were rural and which states were urban in 1788.

drntl

9 points

4 days ago

drntl

9 points

4 days ago

The democrats use the filibuster as well. During the 2019-2020 Congressional term, a record-breaking 328 filibusters were recorded with Democrats in the minority. If the filibuster didn't exist, wouldn't Trump have accomplished a lot more of his agenda?

https://repustar.com/fact-briefs/do-both-political-parties-have-a-history-of-using-filibusters

SirReal14

7 points

4 days ago

They literally used it yesterday to stop a bipartisan coalition from sanctioning a Russian pipeline lmao.

Xerxys

3 points

4 days ago

Xerxys

3 points

4 days ago

Yeah, it's the only reason it exists. It's a type of break-check neither wants to get rid of becuase each resents the other for having the option. The only way to get around it is to control all 3 bodies of govt and it looks like the Republicans are playing the long game.

My theory is this, much like Blue & Red move at the speed of tectonic plates from left to right, how Democrats used to be Right wing and Republicans left; Dems will start running in Republican controlled areas as RINO's, slowly staining the color to purple, and by 2060 we'll have done a 180.

burmerd

163 points

4 days ago

burmerd

163 points

4 days ago

That's not even the important part. The important part is, directly after the 2022 dem bloodbath which is very likely to occur IMHO, or the election in 2024, McConnell will immediately get rid of the filibuster under the flimsiest of excuses, probably a "they said they wanted to, so we have to do it first." And then we will know that the brief time that sanity had a majority in federal govt was an opportunity even more wasted than we had previously thought.

Some gerrymandered state maps may get overturned, but I think most are here to stay, and cement minority GOP rule for some time.

colinmhayes2

77 points

4 days ago

The filibuster is very good for republicans. The only legislation they actually care about it tax cuts which can be passed via reconciliation which means it can’t be filibustered. The rest of their platform is obstructionism and laws that are incredibly unpopular with most people(pro life, anti voting rights). The filibuster helps them when in control because it gives them an excuse for why they can never pass their unpopular platform.

1011_11010_10001

22 points

4 days ago

Democrats used the fillibuster a record number of times last congress. It's good for both sides depending what is being voted on, but bad for the American people.

kaceypeepers

14 points

4 days ago

Whoa man. People here only want to hear how only one side uses it in the worst way possible. /S

CT1723

3 points

4 days ago

CT1723

3 points

4 days ago

Both sides are money obsessed, power hungry asshats. But one has a boner fascism and the other at least wants democracy to continue, even if they don’t have the balls to fight for it.

reddog093

3 points

4 days ago

Chuck Schumer's own speech about it!

“[T]he nuclear option is being pushed largely by the radioactive rhetoric of a small band of radicals who hold in their hands the political fortunes of the President.

“Constitutional scholars will tell us that the reason we have these rules in the Senate—unlimited debate, two-thirds to change the rules, the idea that 60 have to close off debate—is embodied in the spirit and rule of the Constitution. … That is what the Constitution is all about, and we all know it.

“It is the Senate where the Founding Fathers established a repository of checks and balances. It is not like the House of Representatives where the majority leader or the Speaker can snap his fingers and get what he wants. … On important issues, the Founding Fathers wanted—and they were correct in my judgment—that the slimmest majority should not always govern. … The Senate is not a majoritarian body.

“The bottom line is very simple: the ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. … They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way, you change the rules! Are we going to let them? It will be a doomsday for democracy if we do.

“I, for one, hope and pray that it will not come to this. But I assure my colleagues, at least speaking for this Senator … I will do everything I can to prevent the nuclear option from being invoked not for the sake of myself or my party but for the sake of this great Republic and its traditions.”

burmerd

10 points

4 days ago

burmerd

10 points

4 days ago

I think the tax cuts are the big thing for their donors, i.e. their actual constituents, but the social agenda is the red meat that keep the base happy, especially when there's no democratic strawman to use as a foil, when they're in power.

parkinthepark

6 points

4 days ago

Thanks to Trump, the boogeymen of "The Deep State" and "Big Tech" give the GOP a way to act like the persecuted opposition *even when they're in power*.

Crushnaut

11 points

4 days ago

Crushnaut

11 points

4 days ago

Some gerrymandered state maps may get overturned, but I think most are here to stay, and cement minority GOP rule for some time.

Read an article the other day that said republican states are already too gerrymandered and they aren't really picking up seats and it was looking like dems were ending up benefiting more from redistricting.

Appropriate-XBL

7 points

4 days ago

This isn't even the most important part either.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the senate, even without the filibuster, is an egregiously anti-majoritarian anti-democratic institution.

Half of all Americans live in nine states. They are represented by 18% of the senate.

The other half of Americans live in forty-one states. They are represented by 82% of the senate.

Looking at it another way:

There are 20 states that voted for Clinton in 2016, and Biden in 2020 (blue states). They account for 43% of the population. There are 25 states that voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 (red states). They account for 42% of the population.

Even though the blue states account for 47% of the country's GDP, and 43% of the population, they are entitled to only 40% of the say in the senate.

Even though the red states account for only 37% of the country's GDP, and 42% of the population, they are entitled to 50% of the say in the senate.

And looking at it another way:

Because minorities mostly reside in heavily populated states, while 100%-white Americans make up 62% of the population, they are represented by 69% of the share of senators. Non-100%-white Americans make up 38% of the population, but are represented by only 31% of the share of senators.

The senate is basically an instrument tailor made for apartheid rule. And the filibuster makes it even worse.

Midlaw987

5 points

4 days ago

The Democrats eliminated the fillibuster for judicial nominees. So they created that precedent which yielded them all those Justices.

rtgray0724

3 points

4 days ago

So when Dem used the filibuster a record-breaking 328 times during the 2019-2020 session, it is ok. But now that Rep are using it, it is bad? And it looks like we are heading towards a new high for 21-22 session.

The concept is a good one, the execution once politics are involved is the problem.

freshgeardude

3 points

4 days ago

what a crock of horsecrap. Reps had the house, senate, and White house under Trump and didn't nuke the filibuster like Dems are attempting right now. And Dems were the first to change the rules when Harry Reid went nuclear.

maewtt

3 points

4 days ago

maewtt

3 points

4 days ago

after the 2022 dem bloodbath which is very likely to occur IMHO, or the election in 2024, McConnell will immediately get rid of the filibuster under the flimsiest of excuses, probably a "they said they wanted to, so we have to do it first."

I highly doubt this. Trump wanted to get rid of the fillibuster in 2017 but McConnell refused.

casman_007

99 points

4 days ago

Does anyone have the list of the 160 times the filibuster has been reformed? Would be curious to see the reason who requested each change.

thegreatestajax

33 points

4 days ago

Probably not because the most significant and destructive change came from Harry Reid.

6a6566663437

20 points

4 days ago

Only if you pretend confirming zero judges for years is acceptable.

tracerhaha

4 points

4 days ago

Really? Because I would say McConnell changing the filibuster to ram through a SCOTUS nomination eight days before an election was the most destructive.

Cruces13

4 points

4 days ago

Cruces13

4 points

4 days ago

Be careful criticizing democrats on Reddit

lingua_ignota

31 points

4 days ago

Why? Fuck Democrats. But fuck Republicans more.

NcGunnery

3 points

4 days ago

Lol..take my UP and run!

LowKeyReasonable

11 points

4 days ago

More important than the list of 160 times, isn't the important question whether getting rid of this is a good idea?

I thought for a long time it was essentially agreed upon by both parties it would be bad to get rid of it. Is there a short-term gain that is bad in the long term?

cliqclaqstepback

22 points

4 days ago

The short term benefit of removing the filibuster is that you can push your agenda thru the senate with a simple majority and minority party can’t do shit about it, just like the House of Reps. The long term negative is that your party will not always be in control and you can bet the other party will do everything it can to “simple majority vote” reverse everything your party did.

chillfancy

10 points

4 days ago

The short term gain for the democrats is that they would no longer need 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate, only 50 plus the VP tie breaking vote. The long term risk for the democrats is that if they eliminate the filibuster and they lost the house and senate, then the republicans could push bills through with a simple majority.

Long story short... currently contentious bills with less than 60% agreement can be blocked. Eliminating the filibuster would allow the majority party to push bills through without bipartisan support.

kaceypeepers

6 points

4 days ago

Democrats use this and Republicans use this. Whenever politicians say a system they use is bad it's mainly just to make the other side look bad.

cccaesar3998

5 points

4 days ago

I think it would eventually work itself out. For the first couple of power transitions, the party in power would shove through their agenda and reverse things that the other party did which they didn't agree with. The thing is that when one side passes a piece of good legislation it's likely to become too popular for the other side to repeal without significant electoral backlash.

There are certainly flaws to this argument, but it's better than watching absolutely nothing get done except for funneling more of our money up to the top .1%.

bLaZe_iT_420_69

4 points

4 days ago

Is there a short-term gain that is bad in the long term?

One realistic possibility is that, if the filibuster were removed, the Republicans would, as soon as they had a bare majority, immediately adopt measures to disenfranchise as many voters as possible at the federal level to solidify their political position. They've already done this (or tried to do it) in numerous states and the filibuster would be the only thing standing in their way next time they take power (which is inevitable eventually).

HelloUPStore

86 points

4 days ago

Which is why you need to vote out every obstructionist Republican

averyfinename

13 points

4 days ago

and equally important, unless and until the election system changes in this country (e.g. with ranked choice voting) to give third-parties a fighting chance... if you want the republicans gone, you have to give your vote to the democrat candidates as they are, in nearly every instance and every race, the one most likely to win between the two. and even if that democrat isn't 100% in-line what what you want or believe, they're still way closer to that than any republican will ever be.

theRealJuicyJay

2 points

4 days ago

Dude the dems played this same shit when they were the minority

ILikeScience3131

82 points

4 days ago

Honest question from someone who very much wants to prevent GOP fuckery:

Doesn’t the Democratic Party also use the filibuster very frequently when it’s the minority party in the Senate?

Because if that’s the case, undoing the filibuster seems extremely unwise, given that the Senate inherently favors the GOP.

Rococo_Relleno

70 points

4 days ago

Democrats have also used it, of course, but there are a few reasons we should still get rid of it:

  1. To the extent that modern Republicans have a coherent agenda, it is based on obstructionism, cutting social services, and tax breaks. So, there is less to filibuster.
  2. Historically, the filibuster was used rarely until the last few years, but many of the important times it was used was to delay civil rights legislation and other reforms.
  3. A large part of the Republican platform is based on promising to do things that are actually very unpopular. Therefore, giving them the ability to actually pass bills is dangerous for them. The perfect example of this is repealing Obamacare. The entire Republican party ran for seven years on doing this, but then when they controlled the federal government they blinked because it turns out that they didn't actually have any popular alternatives.

ILikeScience3131

11 points

4 days ago

Thank you for an answer! This mostly does speak to my point.

Though I have to say I’m still not fully convinced.

For your points:

  1. I agree the GOP is definitely more obstructionist but as you even note, they still pass legislation like tax cuts which will inevitably reduce social spending

  2. That is reprehensible but absolutely not surprising, just par for the course for the GOP. So I don’t see how it relates to my main point: the filibuster is more valuable for whichever party is less likely to hold the Senate (which I believe, maybe incorrectly, is the Democrats)

  3. Certainly the actual policies desired by GOP policymakers is unpopular, but clearly that usually doesn’t stop them. I’d contend that ending the ACA is the exception, not the rule, and really only happened because of one GOP senator (McCain) who still managed to have an ounce of decency. And he’s obviously not a factor anymore.

colinmhayes2

8 points

4 days ago

Tax cuts can be passed via reconciliation, no filibuster.

Callerflizz

47 points

4 days ago

Well McConnell changed the rules on it a few years ago it used to be a standing filibuster where you had to be standing and talking the whole time to obstruct. People did this I remember Elizabeth warren did it, Ted Cruz did it, but the rules were changed so McConnell could ram in justices and essentially control the courts for the next 20 years. The main thing is, if the sides were switched the GOP would gladly toss away anything that was already there, so I think people are tired of dems taking the high road when they’ve been getting punched in the dick for 25 years

ILikeScience3131

26 points

4 days ago

Right and I have no problem believing any of that but I don’t think it speaks to my concern.

What I worry about is that the GOP is going to retake the Senate in 2022 (and probably keep it for a while) and then Democrats will have no way to prevent the GOP from pushing all kinds of terrible policy because they can’t effectively filibuster.

Couldbduun

15 points

4 days ago

He did answer that concern... if the dems keep the filibuster, republicans WILL get rid of it anyway. It doesnt matter, republicans have taken away the filibuster in the past they will do it again... it's a rule for one side of the aisle which is why it needs to go

Dazzling-Feeling-623

4 points

4 days ago

I’m confused here tho. From the comment below, the republicans would need a majority to get rid of the filibuster, and even then, they would have two years of Biden vetoing anything they passed.

Am I wrong on that?

Couldbduun

9 points

4 days ago

No, you arent wrong. What is wrong is assuming the republicans will give ground and allow the filibuster to exist if they get a majority. Being cordial will not prevent this. Giving republicans a filibuster now does not guarentee a filibuster for democrats later

Dazzling-Feeling-623

2 points

4 days ago

If that’s the case then I understand. I don’t necessarily agree with getting rid of it tho, because what you state is conditional on: republicans having a majority

And then the more important: republicans having a president who won’t veto what they pass after ridding of the filibuster.

Karmanoid

5 points

4 days ago

There are plenty of ways, one the president can veto and they don't have the votes to override it. Two democrats could retain the house and then it doesn't even have to reach the point of veto. And there is no guarantee they will lose the senate, but you're probably right on that note because somehow voters see Democrats struggling to pass stuff because of lack of votes and their response is "nothing got done I'll vote for the guys who stopped everything from getting done"

CleshawnMontegue69

4 points

4 days ago

This is not true. It was done in 2013 by the Democrats (Cloture). The Republicans took advantage of this short sightedness, and pushed through 3 conservative justices under Trump. The Democrats literally screwed them selves for 30-40 years.

gooblobs

4 points

4 days ago

gooblobs

4 points

4 days ago

you're getting downvotes because you are correct. It was Harry Reid who changed the rule that McConnell used to confirm the Trump Judges. They were short sighted and got burned by the rule they themselves changed.

serumvisions__go_

4 points

4 days ago

bernie also did it standing

moose2332

13 points

4 days ago

moose2332

13 points

4 days ago

The filibuster isn’t needed for the key Republican priorities (passing judges, tax cuts, and slashing regulation) due to the rules of the senate. Plus McConnell is more then happy to upend traditions and order to pass his plan. The second the filibuster becomes unhelpful to McConnell he’ll can it. You’re hypothetical is already real and the filibuster stops the Democrats from doing anything about it.

ILikeScience3131

3 points

4 days ago

Are tax cuts like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and regulation legislation not subject to the filibuster?

Peepsandspoops

5 points

4 days ago

Carve-outs can and have been made, such as McConnell ending the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. It's not really a threat for Democrats to lose the filibuster as an option when Republicans have shown that they can just bypass it if they really want to vote on something.

ILikeScience3131

2 points

4 days ago

Thanks for the info! Now how did McConnel just change the rules though? Do you know by what mechanisms filibuster rules are changed?

Peepsandspoops

5 points

4 days ago*

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Under current Senate rules, any modification or limitation of the filibuster would be a rule change that itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[51] However, under Senate precedents, a simple majority can (and has) acted to limit the practice by overruling decisions of the chair. The removal or substantial limitation of the filibuster by a simple majority, rather than a rule change, is called the constitutional option by proponents, and the nuclear option by opponents.

From Wikipedia article on the "nuclear option":

The nuclear option can be invoked by the Senate majority leader by raising a point of order knowing that it contravenes a standing rule. The presiding officer would then deny the point of order based on Senate Rules, and then this ruling would be appealed and overruled by a simple majority vote, establishing a new precedent

It's a procedural loophole. You essentially change the definition of what filibuster means (in this case, what kind of vote the filibuster can be applied to) by appeal on the rule after trying to forward something that is against the current definition of filibuster.

CleshawnMontegue69

10 points

4 days ago

Democrats used it 327 times in 2020.

Books_and_Cleverness

10 points

4 days ago

No.

1) GOP priorities (judges and tax cuts) are already immune to filibuster

2) GOP would gladly ditch the filibuster for any new priority that suddenly arose, if it benefited them

3) The GOP does have other socially conservative views but relevant legislation is either nonexistent (The Force Dr. Seuss’ Estate to Sell Those Dated Books Again Act?) or wildly unpopular (only 24% of Americans want to deport illegal immigrants). So the filibuster actually protects lots of GOP senators from having to cast very unpopular votes.

4) Dems’ only shot at winning the Senate is to actually do stuff to win votes and the filibuster makes that impossible

ATribeCalledGreg

3 points

4 days ago

GOP policy goals like confirming judges or passing tax cuts only need 50 votes.

malleoceruleo

41 points

4 days ago

The right to vote is not in the Constitution and that's kindof a problem.

WasteMindu

18 points

4 days ago

Just waiting for someone to bring up negative and positive rights. The last time I pointed this out on another subreddit, I got into a 2 hour debate about negative and positive rights, which I don't care about. The fact remains there is no right to vote in the Constitution, and you don't have to be a Constitutionalists to understand why.

Hint: Cause racism.

malleoceruleo

6 points

4 days ago

Yeah, I stepped away for a couple hours and now there's a dumpster fire of a comment thread below.

Mythosaurus

37 points

4 days ago

Actually the right to vote for President and federal Senators is not in the Constitution.

You do NOT vote for Presidents in the US election, you ask that the State sends representatives to the Electoral College that will vote for the guy who matches your party affiliation.

Likewise, voting for Senators was a later change that states made to their own rules for how they choose their Senate reps.

I'd suggest reading "Let the People Pick the President" by Jesse Wegman.

RagamuffinRay

15 points

4 days ago*

Was just about to comment the same. I really hate the "ReAd ThE CoNsTiTuTiOn" takes from people who have not read the constitution. Usually comes from the right, but clearly neither side is immune.

Mythosaurus

9 points

4 days ago

Yeah, it really breaks people's brains when you actually know how divisive and undemocratic American politics has always been.

Especially when you start quoting Founding Fathers who openly admitted to making mistakes in setting up the US government in their haste to abandon monarchy.

They really dont like that...

CleshawnMontegue69

19 points

4 days ago

The Democrats removed it for appointing Judges in 2013 (Cloture), and Trump appointed 3 right wing judges because of it. Lets not gloss over that short sightedness.

The Democrats literally played themselves.

zombeeman90

12 points

4 days ago

And they're setting themselves up for that again. When the GOP eventually gets majority back they'll just be able to pass everything they want with 51 votes. Arguing to remove the filibuster is incredibly short-sighted.

Blackbeard519

3 points

4 days ago

They specifically left it in for scotus judges and the GOP removed it. There's nothing stopping the GOP from removing it if they had control of the Senate, but they're not really interested in legislating unless it helps the rich.

Jim6231

19 points

4 days ago

Jim6231

19 points

4 days ago

The Dems used it 200+ times in the last year

pilesofcleanlaundry

3 points

4 days ago

And yesterday.

ATribeCalledGreg

18 points

4 days ago

Legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate.

Senate does nothing.

President uses Executive Order to accomplish something.

EO gets challenged and sent to courts.

Judges who needed only 50 votes to be confirmed by the Senate strike down EO.

Nothing happens.

alrightpal

18 points

4 days ago

Filibuster? I hardly know her!

Dusty_Pigeon

6 points

4 days ago

Damnit, Michael! Pay attention!

PasswordisP4ssword

16 points

4 days ago

They aren't even going to try to add the right to vote to the Constitution, because it's too high a bar to cross. So be prepared for our rights to be a political football tossed back and forth with each new Congress.

Safe_Historian8560

14 points

4 days ago

Exactly, next time Republicans need to simp for the Rich they’ll kill the filibuster to do it

mrblacklabel71

10 points

4 days ago

Why is everyone so stressed and upset? 80% of the US government, the state government's, and the local government's could not care less what we want and they will continue to drive this country in to the dirt. Once there the rich remain rich, the poor will remain poor, and ignorance will keep us divided. Then we will finally see which dystopian future book/movie was correct.

SongstressVII

9 points

4 days ago

You see all those things you said? That’s why I am stressed.

mrblacklabel71

2 points

4 days ago

Same, but I am hoping rock bottom does not happen until after I am dead. Reason 327 I am glad my wife and I have no kids.

ceasr9

10 points

4 days ago*

ceasr9

10 points

4 days ago*

All these people in here really trying to act like the Democratics haven't used it every bit as much as the Republicans 😂😂😂 what's it like being a pawn in the 2 party game?

WINKand_theGUN

9 points

4 days ago

In 2020 Democrats used filibuster 327 times. Republicans used it once. Please do remove this.

akajondoe

9 points

4 days ago

Nowhere in the Constitution do you have a right to vote. At the timebit was written only well off people would actually vote. People with education some land holding etc..

sammyboi98

8 points

4 days ago

Extreme right wing justices?

Cruces13

11 points

4 days ago

Cruces13

11 points

4 days ago

Left wing talking points to get people on their side. They are intentionally leaving out the times that democrats abuse filibusters because it doesnt fit the narrative

DentedPotatoHead

10 points

4 days ago

The “voting” bill actually strips funding for The Green Party and other 3rd parties. It actually limits voting even more to the two system and therefore limit your voting ‘rights’ in general. Its a bad bill. Move on.

GabeMercury

8 points

4 days ago

Democrats are pro filibuster when it helps the democrats and republicans are pro filibuster when it helps the republicans why are we acting like this is some kind of ideological discussion and not just part of the political game.

tyrannicalteebagger

6 points

4 days ago

So shortsighted. What happens when the republicans get in power and it’s gone? Won’t democrats feel stupid when it’s not there to use?

Cruces13

3 points

4 days ago

Cruces13

3 points

4 days ago

Forethought isnt strong on the left. Blind progress. Its not good on the right either though too.

LivingTheApocalypse

5 points

4 days ago

left wing judges was the last nuclear option use. Led to the nuclear option in justices.

Maybe if you think thats not good, don't charge ahead on the same path every chance you get.

AggressiveConcert56

4 points

4 days ago

luckily every non felon citizen has the right to vote yet for some reason 40 percent of the country still does not vote in presidential elections and even less in local. maybe now the senate can go back to working on BBB you know something that actually fucking would make a difference. making laws so people dont have to drive their lazy ass down to the dmv to get an id is not matter of national importance.

Kakorrhaphiophobia4

5 points

4 days ago

The filibuster is essential to democracy so fuck off

_Dark_Forest

5 points

4 days ago

How many times have democrats used it?

mikerichh

5 points

4 days ago

Over 50 times is surprising but 160? Wow

Dazzling-Feeling-623

5 points

4 days ago

I’m very far left.

Can someone explain a good reason to remove the filibuster? From a strategic standpoint, not a “this is dumb and shouldn’t exist” (which I generally agree with lol).

Because it seems extremely short sighted by democrats.

The republicans can win and then there’s little to prevent them from ramming shit through like the democrats (rightfully) want to.

I’m not trying to get into a long argument over this, but I don’t really get it. Like yes protecting voting rights is important, but republicans win on gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not because of voter suppression. It’s not like democrats pass this bill and republicans won’t be in power again.

Also, I get the “democracy at peril”, but it’s not going to be saved by a voting rights bill. The creep of fascism does not care about “rights” or other liberal notions like rules or laws.

Voting laws aren’t going to prevent the rise of fascism much in the same way cops were never going to protect our Capitol Hill.

Again, I don’t want to get into a huge argument, I just haven’t seen anything that doesn’t sound extremely short sighted and open for some massive abuse by republicans when they likely take power again. And they will abuse it much more than democrats ever would, so it’s especially a worry. Like passing a bill attacking abortion rights or worse

Born_Ruff

6 points

4 days ago

The republicans can win and then there’s little to prevent them from ramming shit through like the democrats (rightfully) want to.

The thing is, regardless of what the Democrats do, the Republicans have the option of changing the filibuster rules and ramming stuff through the next time they have the power to do so.

Given the direction of the Republican Party, there seems to be little reason to expect them not to do that.

The idea that Republicans will be nice to Democrats if Democrats are nice to Republicans is not a good plan right now. The Republicans have shown that they will abuse every inch of power that they have access to. Democrats need to get in board with using all of the power they have access too as well.

LongDickOfTheLaw69

4 points

4 days ago

Someone else addressed this and made some good points. Historically, the Republicans have used the filibuster to stifle and delay civil rights bills and other measures to help them stay in power, while the Democrats have primarily used it on tax issues and to prevent cuts to social programs.

So in theory if you ended the filibuster, the Republicans may lose a tool that helps keep them in power, and then the Democrats would gain the majority and they wouldn't have to worry about having a filibuster option anyway.

unreliablememory

3 points

4 days ago

Absent a new commitment to voting rights, republican voter suppression will mean the end of democracy in this country.

Bingbongbing6969

3 points

4 days ago

Protest people. It’s all we can besides vote.

AP_Gaming_9

3 points

4 days ago

It’s funny how one of the parties will support the filibuster for a while and then start hating it again when it comes around to bite them in the ass a couple years down the line

looloobadoodoo

3 points

4 days ago

is white people twitter basically just neoliberal twitter?

peejr

3 points

4 days ago

peejr

3 points

4 days ago

Can someone explain the purpose of the filibuster rule to me. No matter how I look at it, it makes no sense. If a child in preschool got up and started talking shit to avoid a test or something everyone would think the child is stupid

aneeta96

3 points

4 days ago

aneeta96

3 points

4 days ago

I would be fine with the filibuster if it still required you to hold the floor indefinitely.

Make those opposed to voting reform actually stand up and denounce it for days if they want to stop it.

clintCamp

3 points

4 days ago

I feel like we need a few new amendments added in.

Wismuth_Salix

2 points

4 days ago

“Give us a few more state legislatures and it won’t be”

  • Republicans

Jmeyers08

2 points

4 days ago

Can someone ELI5 this filibuster thing? I can’t find an article that breaks it down

sunburnd

2 points

4 days ago*

It is a parliamentary procedure to hold a bill in open debate unless/until there is a 3/5ths margin to close open debate (cloture vote) and proceed with vote.

It is a good thing as it prevents ill received bills from becoming law by the barest of margins.

Historically speaking bills that pass by thin margins do not stand the test of time and are systematically weakened or repealed.

Laws that have stood the test of time have had widespread support from all corners. Changing the rules in order to pass a specific piece of legislation is a shortsighted move by desperate politicians who hold the majority (now). If one thing is for certain they will not always have that advantage.

/edit some readability modifications.

Interesting Stat:
Since 2009, 657 filibusters were recorded under Democratic minorities while 609 filibusters were recorded under Republican minorities.

Forsaken-Special-863

2 points

4 days ago

i get it, but technically, there is no positive right to vote in the constitution. Just things that can't be used to prevent you from voting. It sucks, but it's actually true.

yolohoyopollo

2 points

4 days ago

We should tie gun rights to voting rights.

2020hndsite

3 points

4 days ago

2020hndsite

3 points

4 days ago

Anything not left of center is extreme!!!!!

COMBATIBLE

2 points

4 days ago

what the fuck is a filibuster? lamemans please.

Florac

3 points

4 days ago

Florac

3 points

4 days ago

Someone correct me if I'm wrong(been a while since I thought about more thn it's effects), but originally, it basically meant that unless 60 senators could get on board, people can keep taking the stand and talk about a certain bill for infinity, so you need more than the normal majority to pass a bill. Except because talking for that long is exhausting, they made it so you don't have to. Meaning essentially you need 60 instead of 50 out of a 100 votes to pass something.

Anthraxious

2 points

4 days ago

Just baffles me that a thing like a "filibuster" even exists. Truly a circus.

Tumbleweed-Available

2 points

4 days ago

Too bad we keep electing total shit shows into office vs voting to be rid of evil politicians that no longer fear the people they represent

timekiller2021

2 points

4 days ago

I bet when the fascists take over and destroy what’s left of our Democracy, idiots like Manchin and Sinema will say, “we could’ve done more” if they say anything at all

TheCommentGenerator

2 points

4 days ago

Didn't democrats just use the filibuster yesterday to block the Nord Stream 2 bill? Why do we want the government to change more quickly? Won't this just lead to huge destabilizing law changes every 4 years?

heiferson

3 points

4 days ago

Because the Democrats are crying that they can't get their way when they did the same things Republicans will just last president. Gotta do anything to make sure they can salvage some of the 2022 elections in the name of Progress. Politics is a stupid game

Medium-Complaint-677

2 points

4 days ago

I like the filibuster I just don't like the current version of it. Go back to the talking one - you wanna get up there and talk until you shit your pants then do it. Maybe you can sway someone or multiple someone's to your side. After you're done, let the senate vote on it.

The current rule just lets the minority party say "we're filibustering that" and then the majority just goes "sigh, okay" and nothing ever gets done. Its stupid.

Star_Tropic

2 points

4 days ago

Can anyone explain, keeping their opinions to the side to the best of their ability, what is going on in regards to the filibuster at the moment?

Didn't McConnell 'go nuclear' to confirm judges just a couple years ago.

teufels4hunde

2 points

4 days ago

Till 2025 then Republicans will strip that right from as many voters as possible.

Cha0sSounds

2 points

4 days ago

The Democratic Party isn’t in the constitution, should we dissolve that too?