McConnell: "there's no sentiment" for nuking legislative filibsuter

[Cashew]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconnell-promises-not-to-kill-filibuster-236873

This is probably wishful thinking on my part, but I expect it to be seriously considered once the senate begins to seriously legislate and have everything controversial filibustered.

[Virginiá]

Yes, I'm inclined to believe him. Mitch isn't dumb, and neither are many of the others. They know one day they will be in the minority again with Democrats in control, and with no legislative filibuster, Democrats can go hogwild with social programs and policies that people actually like.

It's much harder for Republicans to repeal government programs & policies that directly benefit people in a substantive way. It's why despite years of railing against PPACA, they can't seem to pass any kind of repeal. In this sense, the filibuster is uniquely useful to Republicans and a major hindrance to Democrats. Gutting it would only help Democrats in the future.

[Klartext89]

Yes, I'm inclined to believe him. Mitch isn't dumb, and neither are many of the others. They know one day they will be in the minority again with Democrats in control, and with no legislative filibuster, Democrats can go hogwild with social programs and policies that people actually like.

It's much harder for Republicans to repeal government programs & policies that directly benefit people in a substantive way. It's why despite years of railing against PPACA, they can't seem to pass any kind of repeal. In this sense, the filibuster is uniquely useful to Republicans and a major hindrance to Democrats. Gutting it would only help Democrats in the future.

Reality comes much faster and therefore, people may like social gifts, but there's simply not the money to pay it. Of course not everyone is reasonable and accepts cuts, but I doubt that this group is in the majority.

[The_Doctor]

Not now there isn't. The Senate is dysfunctional because of the weak Republican majority that exists in America. The Republican agenda has marginal support (and heavy opposition) and thus with a ton of resistance the Republican Congress is finding it hard to enact their agenda without unusual measures.

The Republicans are also going to rue the judicial filibuster being nuked when the Democrats ram through their own judges in the coming decades

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Mostly true on McConnell's part.  There probably are some Senators who'd like to nuke it, but nowhere near a majority for the reasons given already.

[The_Doctor]

Also I think the Democrats will axe the legislative filibuster next. That's the next logical step as a Democratic majority would find it much easier to pass their agenda. Or the Republicans could do it first to ease things. Either way the legislative filibuster is now on life support.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Also I think the Democrats will axe the legislative filibuster next. That's the next logical step as a Democratic majority would find it much easier to pass their agenda. Or the Republicans could do it first to ease things. Either way the legislative filibuster is now on life support.

The Democrats should nuke it the moment they get into office.  Escalation is the only acceptable response at this point.

[mvd10]

I still think the Republicans should nuke the filibuster. There is nothing that will prevent the Dems from nuking the filibuster if they win the presidency and have a decent majority in the senate in 2020 or beyond so the Republicans should just nuke the filibuster and pass as much of their agenda as possible before the Democrats get their chance. The Republicans can't pass something like national RTW or regulatory reform with reconciliation.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

probably because they can't get a majority for any of the big stuff anyway

[Beet]

Neither filibuster should've been nuked. The Democrats should've just voted to confirm Gorsuch.

[Virginiá]

Neither filibuster should've been nuked. The Democrats should've just voted to confirm Gorsuch.

What is the point of having a filibuster option for SCOTUS confirmations if the majority party will get rid of it the second it is used?

[Beet]

Neither filibuster should've been nuked. The Democrats should've just voted to confirm Gorsuch.

What is the point of having a filibuster option for SCOTUS confirmations if the majority party will get rid of it the second it is used?

What is the point of voting against cloture on SCOTUS confirmations if the majority party will just override the filibuster if it fails?

[Virginiá]

What is the point of voting against cloture on SCOTUS confirmations if the majority party will just override the filibuster if it fails?

That doesn't exactly bolster your point, though (I'm aware of the shortcomings on my end as well). The only conclusion I can draw from this is that it is pointless to have. If Republicans always intend to gut it the second it is used to impede their ability to fill a SCOTUS seat, and Democrats vote for cloture just to prevent it from getting killed, then all we are doing is preserving the appearance of a Senate procedure when in reality it is toothless.

[RaphaelDLG]

The juicy secret about the filibuster and why it still exists today is that... individual Senators (other than, say, Mitch McConnell) of BOTH the majority and minority party love it, because it makes them incredibly powerful in a way that members of traditional majoritarian legislative houses like the HoR, state congress, etc are not.

You wouldn't find enough Republicans willing to give up their ability to single-handedly torpedo standard legislation.

If filibuster wasn't something that most Senators actually wanted, it wouldn't still exist today and would have been nuked a long time ago, because the Senate rulebook is arbitrary and eminently changeable.

Ofc I think it is bullsh**t and that Dems should get rid of it the moment they take the majority, and that this was an important step along the road.  However, gutless Democrats and their stupid voters have too much respect for "institutional norms" and too much desire to maintain their own power to jettison it.

[heatcharger]

Neither filibuster should've been nuked. The Democrats should've just voted to confirm Gorsuch.

Do you really believe that if Ginsburg, god forbid, were to die at some point within the next three years that Republicans wouldn't nominate someone to the right of Gorsuch and just use the nukes then instead? The idea that Republicans actually care about maintaining ideological balance is so laughable.

[Beet]

Neither filibuster should've been nuked. The Democrats should've just voted to confirm Gorsuch.

Do you really believe that if Ginsburg, god forbid, were to die at some point within the next three years that Republicans wouldn't nominate someone to the right of Gorsuch and just use the nukes then instead? The idea that Republicans actually care about maintaining ideological balance is so laughable.

Even of that's true, it's not an argument for voting against Gorsuch. Besides, I was just told in another thread that the filibuster wasn't important because the Republicans aren't "cartoon villains."