Do you really want to nuke the Senate filbuster rule?

[H. Ross Peron]

It is not the most riveting article in its prose, but Sean Trende attempts to make the case that eliminating the filibuster is a risky scheme for the Dems.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/06/21/would_nuking_the_filibuster_really_help_democrats_145959.html

I suspect the surmise among some progressives is that enacting the agenda they want will prove so popular that it those ideas will have a "permanent" majority going forward, along with campaign and voting rules, that will maximize the Dem advantage going forward, so much so that the risk will be low that a Pub trifecta will take power and do a 180, and in turn maximize the Pub advantage. That sanguine perception  might have higher odds of actually being true if SCOTUS was dominated by liberals, so there would be less risk that some of such changes in the rules of the road, might be nixed on Constitutional grounds, e.g. the invoking of the doctrine of "states rights."

On the other hand, for both sides, some might brood about an increased  risk of wildly careening public policies, including "voting rights" policies and the like, as one party and then the other secures the trifecta. And that is a greater risk where the partisan divide is so impermeable, with relatively few in the middle taking a more cautious and measured approach. We live in the age of to the victor goes all of the spoils, and to the loser, it's the gulag.

In a way, I am torn between the school of learning by hard knocks (if you aren't willing to risk great pain, you lose out on the prospect of great gain, so just go for it), and the school that such pain is really not worth the candle, so the activity on the playground should be heavily moderated (the  odds of finding the shining city on the hill by enduring such a painful journey are just too low to make  the quest a prudent one).

I know, it is hard is one is a partisan to not be heavily influenced by the Dems holding the trifecta at the moment. As Sean Trende notes, all those "Dem" academics had zero interest in nuking the filibuster when the Pubs held the trifecta. I guess they are not in the "what goes around, comes around, be careful what you wish for," department. Maybe they are all guest lecturers, who just live in the moment. Thinking about tomorrow has no meaning. They won't be there, to take hostile questions about yesterday's lecture.

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

Kkondae is an expression used in South Korea to describe a condescending person. The slang noun kkondae was originally used by students and teenagers to refer to older people such as fathers and teachers.[1] Recently, however, the word has been used to refer to a boss or an older person who does so-called kkondae-jil (acting like a kkondae, in the Korean language), that forces the former's outdated way of thinking onto another person.[2]

[Babeuf]

Sure, majority rule is a good unto itself, even when it results in bad outcomes. The people should get what they vote for.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Absolutely. I want a Congress that can actually pass laws under ordinary circumstances, and I think the risk of Republicans implementing terrible laws as a direct result of Democrats abolishing the filibuster is overrated. It should be obvious from the last two Republican administrations that Republicans are already perfectly capable of implementing terrible policy through executive orders and budget reconciliation, and changing the filibuster isn't going to make a major difference in that regard.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

After being on the fence and leaning towards reform only for some time, I've come around to the yes argument. Republicans have abused the ever-living f*** out of the filibuster to literally stopped any sort of meaningful progress it doesn't allow our reconciliation votes from occurring. This doesn't really stiny a broadly popular Progressive agenda that Republicans oppose, but fundamentally undermine basic confidence in the American system of government being able to work and being able to deliver what people actually overwhelmingly want. It breeds cynicism and disregard of government functions, which is exactly what Republicans and joy nowadays.

I am pretty much unconvinced that the threat of Republican legislation being stopped by a democratic filibuster is an actual sing. Republicans just want lower social spending and taxes, readily achievable through reconciliation budget bills, hacking the federal Judiciary with Federalist Society clones which is likewise not subject to filibuster, and undermining governmental regulation Which is far easier stopped rather than by legislation than by capturing the White House and stocking executive branch with industry shills who can largely ignore the day-to-day enforcement of such regulations.

Honestly, what legislation which Republicans seek to pass without a filibuster that they would actually risk the Electoral backlash and likely appeal after the next election? Privatization of Social Security or Medicaid? No one but the absolute true believers in that caucus want to come within a hundred yards of touching that third rail. The closest I could possibly conceive would be trying to pack a nationwide right to work law, but I suspect it would last only as long as the next Democratic trifecta.

Seriously, as a progressive there's no goddamn use for a filibuster whatsoever. As an American it should be apparent to anyone but the most hardcore Republican and conservative activist whose Mantra that government gridlock is a good thing--we live in a republic not a democracy blah blah blah blah blah - - that its transformation from a in case of emergency break glass measure to a legislative maneuver used on any day ending in a y fundamentally the roads Faith in American representative democracy.

But then, Republicans and conservatives have thoroughly demonstrated they don't give a s*** about democracy, only having power. Does the truth hurt my little blue and beige avatars? Sorry, not sorry.

There's at least several ideas that they cannot do within reconciliation:

- Complete repeal of the remainder of Dodd Frank
- Privatization of Social Security and Medicare
- Actually Repealing Obamacare (what they attempted to do under reconciliation was more of a defunding of Obamacare, without those restrictions they could just actually repeal it) (McCain is dead, Murkowski is gone after this congress, Collins may very well be irrelevant)
- Abortion Ban (the new SCOTUS will uphold it)
- Elimination of the Departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy

What makes you so confident about Murkowski being gone?

Most dems will only pref the dem and most Rs are done with Murkowski

[Senator Spark]

Yes. I think that obstructionism is the worst course of action and Republicans tend to use this to hold things up in the Senate. If we got rid of the filibuster rule, it would make things easier to pass and Congress could finally get things done.

[Ancestral Republican]

WHAT is the justification for continuing this, Torie? Do you think a rule to promote the blocking of civil rights legislation was a positive development in American history? Furthermore, what laws will Republicans pass that they haven't already? The only things they care about are wealthy tax cuts and handouts to defense contractors/veterans/troops, which have never faced any obstacles becoming legislation.

[Badger]

Yes, absolutely. If a trifecta is achieved by a party, it should be able to pass its legislative priorities and then be judged by the voters. The Senate already respects minority rights by nature of its composition. The filibuster takes that premise to a tyranny of the minority.

By that logic, Florida ballot measures are the tyranny of the minority.

In what way?

They require 60% to pass

Well, yes oh, they kind of are. But that's merely a single albeit Large state managing its Statewide referendum versus granting absolute tyranny of the minoriti governing the entire federal government as has been the case.

[AtorBoltox]

If we're so worried about tyranny of the majority, let's adopt the model of the 17th century Polish Parliament. Every single senator should hold veto power

[Badger]

Sure, majority rule is a good unto itself, even when it results in bad outcomes. The people should get what they vote for.

This. More importantly, when a majority of people vote for things that should have a good outcome, they should have those things come to pass.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I don’t want to, no, but McConnell has made pretty much every other option impossible.

[Person Man]

I don’t want to, no, but McConnell has made pretty much every other option impossible.

Or the good thing about doing nothing now is that he will be the one to cancel minority rights in the senate. The retaliation to this is to have everything in the senate read out loud and verbatim in the hopes of burning down the click. The next step would to have no committee assignments for minority members and basically just the seniors in congress form a panel with the presidential cabinet to pass the trifecta’s agenda through a set of edicts.

[Yoda]

Not only do I want to nuke the filibuster, I'm coming around to the idea of nuking the Senate itself. A ridiculously undemocratic and unrepresentative body, it's proven itself to be nearly worthless in recent decades. IF (and admittedly it's a big if) we could successfully ban gerrymandering nationwide and also possibly expand the size of the House, it would be hugely beneficial to just do away with the Senate and have a truly representative House where one party cannot rig the lines in their favor and is truly responsive to elections.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Sinema and Manchin made assurances to the R party that they weren't gonna  nuke the Filibuster, but Clyburn said that they can make exceptions for Constitutional issues like VR thats enshrined in the 13, 14, 15 Amendment

We will see what Schumer has up his sleeve but its disappointing that Collins and Romney aren't voting for VR, the Rs are safe bets to keep the Filibuster if they only lose Murkowski

The Dems are gonna keep the Senate but the House is based on if Ds can defeat 5 Rs in CALI, some in NY and IL and MI and PA to offset losses in KS, IA, FL, and TX

[politicallefty]

Yes, absolutely. If a trifecta is achieved by a party, it should be able to pass its legislative priorities and then be judged by the voters. The Senate already respects minority rights by nature of its composition. The filibuster takes that premise to a tyranny of the minority.

By that logic, Florida ballot measures are the tyranny of the minority.

In what way?

They require 60% to pass

Well, as you said, that is the requirement for ballot measures (specifically constitutional amendments). We have no federal analogue in terms of ballot measures, although we already have supermajority requirements to pass constitutional amendments at the federal level. Florida's constitutional requirement for constitutional amendments at the ballot box is not a constraint on the legislature's ability to pass laws.

[Badger]

Honestly, what legislation which Republicans seek to pass without a filibuster that they would actually risk the Electoral backlash and likely appeal after the next election? Privatization of Social Security or Medicaid? No one but the absolute true believers in that caucus want to come within a hundred yards of touching that third rail. The closest I could possibly conceive would be trying to pack a nationwide right to work law, but I suspect it would last only as long as the next Democratic trifecta.

Wouldn't they just pass the stuff they are passing in the states, just as the federal level?

So just insert generic anti-trans laws, restrictions on voting rights, perhaps something banning #wokeness in schools and stuff like that? Even when the federal government does not have the right to actually do that stuff, they can always just tie federal money to it?

Well, that assumes first often such state laws might not conflicting with federal laws. And secondly, the fact that Republicans might still be cavemen at the state level does it mean that Progressive should be stopped from passing a popular mandate granted Progressive agenda at the federal level because the Republican Party in the Senate makeup give them complete and absolute veto over damn near anything that can't be passed through reconciliation or Court appointments.

In short, apples and oranges.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is moot question until after the 2022 midterms to see of D's hold Trifecta, we have the same topic over and over again every week and Sinema said she won't change or nuke the Filibuster

Unless Sinema sees it as a Constitutional issue and get rid of Filibuster, it's gonna be there, remember D's agreed with Rs for the organization resolution that they wouldn't nuke the Filibuster, now they are trying to go back on that pledge

Sinema cosponsored HR 1, she would of nuked it then, but she didn't

The reason why Ds aren't nuking the Filibuster they're still getting judges and nominations thru, Rs have the same number of members on the Committee, if they Nuke the Filibuster, Rs will retaliate and block Biden cabinet and judges, the D's can nuke it next time if they retain Trifecta, Rs will be in the minority