The legislative filibuster must stay
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:54:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  The legislative filibuster must stay
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The legislative filibuster must stay  (Read 1016 times)
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 22, 2021, 08:52:26 AM »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2021, 10:12:34 AM »
« Edited: January 23, 2021, 12:24:13 PM by Frank »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

You must live in an alternative universe.

1.The filibuster encourages obstruction, not bipartisanship, especially from Republicans.

2.Why does the Senate inherently have to be different from the House?

3.Change not being radical and promoting stability in government may have been valid arguments 27 years ago when the Republicans first started abusing the filibuster, but it is not true now on issues ranging from global warming to immigration.

The filibuster is not neutral, it favors the status quo and it favors those, i.e Republicans, who are not serious about governance but who only want to obstruct, because most of the Republican hierarchy, the genuine wealthy and religious elites, benefit from the status quo.

They also benefit from showing that government doesn't work.

4.If the Democrats believe in their policies, they have no real reason to fear of Republicans taking back the Senate.  It is likely precisely due to Republican obstruction that Democrats lose control because they are unable to implement their agenda, and voters then blame the Democrats for 'doing nothing.'  Without the filibuster, likely the Democratic agenda will prove to be popular, especially the 'low hanging fruit' and they'll hold both Houses of Congress for a generation or so, as the Democrats held both Houses from 1954-1980.

Also, if the Democratic agenda does turn out to be unpopular and the Republicans take everything, say in 2024, why shouldn't the Republicans be able to implement their agenda, to the degree that they have one?
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2021, 01:28:07 PM »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.
Logged
It's Perro Sanxe wot won it
Mimoha
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 834
Spain


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2021, 02:38:18 PM »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.

The thing is that, policy-wise, Democrats have much more to gain from the abolition of the filibuster than Republicans do. Why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't abolish the filibuster when he was in the majority and is now fighting tooth and nail to preserve while in the minority? There are two main reason for this:

First, today's GOP has little agenda beyond confirming conservative justices (which they can already do with a simple majority since the filibuster was abolished on judicial nominations) and passing tax cuts (which they can do through reconciliation), so the filibuster isn't really problem for them.

Second, several items of the Democratic agenda would be very hard to roll back by a future Republican Congress. Take a hypothetical Democrat-established universal healthcare system, for example. Attempting to dismantle it would be the Obamacare repeal and replace debacle on steroids, a massive backlash would ensue. Rather, the GOP might be forced to do what the British Conservative Party did in the 1950s, which was accepting the welfare state created by Clement Attlee's Labour government (in spite of previously claiming that it would take "some sort of Gestapo" to function).

About the electoral consequences Democrats would face if they removed the filibuster, I have to say I disagree with you. Most people don't care or don't even know about the filibuster, so its abolition would take little political capital. Also, all evidence suggests Republicans do not get punished for being obstructionists, as was seen in 2010 and 2014.

Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2021, 02:53:12 PM »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.

The thing is that, policy-wise, Democrats have much more to gain from the abolition of the filibuster than Republicans do. Why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't abolish the filibuster when he was in the majority and is now fighting tooth and nail to preserve while in the minority? There are two main reason for this:

First, today's GOP has little agenda beyond confirming conservative justices (which they can already do with a simple majority since the filibuster was abolished on judicial nominations) and passing tax cuts (which they can do through reconciliation), so the filibuster isn't really problem for them.

Second, several items of the Democratic agenda would be very hard to roll back by a future Republican Congress. Take a hypothetical Democrat-established universal healthcare system, for example. Attempting to dismantle it would be the Obamacare repeal and replace debacle on steroids, a massive backlash would ensue. Rather, the GOP might be forced to do what the British Conservative Party did in the 1950s, which was accepting the welfare state created by Clement Attlee's Labour government (in spite of previously claiming that it would take "some sort of Gestapo" to function).

About the electoral consequences Democrats would face if they removed the filibuster, I have to say I disagree with you. Most people don't care or don't even know about the filibuster, so its abolition would take little political capital. Also, all evidence suggests Republicans do not get punished for being obstructionists, as was seen in 2010 and 2014.


It's not like Democrats have 55 seats and the filibuster is the only thing standing in Democrats' way of passing policy. They would have to have their entire caucus united to pass anything, which is never a guarantee. I do think Democrats would face consequences if Republicans hammer that Democrats are refusing to work with the other side. If Democrats lose their slim majority in 2022, they won't be able to do anything. I would not say that Republicans are immune to political consequences. There is a reason McConnell's favorability ratings are so low. In fact, obstructing additional stimulus is the only reason Democrats have the Senate in the first place.
Logged
It's Perro Sanxe wot won it
Mimoha
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 834
Spain


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2021, 03:21:25 PM »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.

The thing is that, policy-wise, Democrats have much more to gain from the abolition of the filibuster than Republicans do. Why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't abolish the filibuster when he was in the majority and is now fighting tooth and nail to preserve while in the minority? There are two main reason for this:

First, today's GOP has little agenda beyond confirming conservative justices (which they can already do with a simple majority since the filibuster was abolished on judicial nominations) and passing tax cuts (which they can do through reconciliation), so the filibuster isn't really problem for them.

Second, several items of the Democratic agenda would be very hard to roll back by a future Republican Congress. Take a hypothetical Democrat-established universal healthcare system, for example. Attempting to dismantle it would be the Obamacare repeal and replace debacle on steroids, a massive backlash would ensue. Rather, the GOP might be forced to do what the British Conservative Party did in the 1950s, which was accepting the welfare state created by Clement Attlee's Labour government (in spite of previously claiming that it would take "some sort of Gestapo" to function).

About the electoral consequences Democrats would face if they removed the filibuster, I have to say I disagree with you. Most people don't care or don't even know about the filibuster, so its abolition would take little political capital. Also, all evidence suggests Republicans do not get punished for being obstructionists, as was seen in 2010 and 2014.


It's not like Democrats have 55 seats and the filibuster is the only thing standing in Democrats' way of passing policy. They would have to have their entire caucus united to pass anything, which is never a guarantee. I do think Democrats would face consequences if Republicans hammer that Democrats are refusing to work with the other side. If Democrats lose their slim majority in 2022, they won't be able to do anything. I would not say that Republicans are immune to political consequences. There is a reason McConnell's favorability ratings are so low. In fact, obstructing additional stimulus is the only reason Democrats have the Senate in the first place.

The difference between having the filibuster and not having it is the difference between passing a small part of your agenda and passing a large part of your agenda. Yes, with their razor-thin majorities, Democrats won’t be able to pass everything they want, even without the filibuster. The point is, getting rid of it would help a lot.

You say Democrats have to compromise to keep Congress in 2022. I don’t know why Democrats need to be so careful about appearing bipartisan and willing to work with the other side of the aisle when the other side of the aisle has made it clear, time and time again, that it is not willing to cooperate with them in any way, shape or form. And, as I’ve already pointed out, it has done so in the past without facing any significant punishment from the voters. Of course they aren’t immune to political consequences, but they did not lose the Senate for obstructing stimulus, they had a done deal on it with the Democrats. The main problem for them in Georgia was, among others, that the Democrats capitalized on Donald Trump’s sudden refusal to agree to the negotiated package and demand for 2,000$ checks from Senate Republicans, a key Democratic proposal thrust into the spotlight by the president’s move.

And even in case you are right and Democrats do face some sort of backlash in the midterms for lack of compromise with the other side (which I reiterate, Democrats have offered but Republicans have rejected), my counterpoint is that they are going to most likely lose at least the House whatever they do or don’t do, so they might as well ram through a filibuster-free Senate everything they can during the next two years.

Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2021, 03:41:12 PM »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.

The thing is that, policy-wise, Democrats have much more to gain from the abolition of the filibuster than Republicans do. Why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't abolish the filibuster when he was in the majority and is now fighting tooth and nail to preserve while in the minority? There are two main reason for this:

First, today's GOP has little agenda beyond confirming conservative justices (which they can already do with a simple majority since the filibuster was abolished on judicial nominations) and passing tax cuts (which they can do through reconciliation), so the filibuster isn't really problem for them.

Second, several items of the Democratic agenda would be very hard to roll back by a future Republican Congress. Take a hypothetical Democrat-established universal healthcare system, for example. Attempting to dismantle it would be the Obamacare repeal and replace debacle on steroids, a massive backlash would ensue. Rather, the GOP might be forced to do what the British Conservative Party did in the 1950s, which was accepting the welfare state created by Clement Attlee's Labour government (in spite of previously claiming that it would take "some sort of Gestapo" to function).

About the electoral consequences Democrats would face if they removed the filibuster, I have to say I disagree with you. Most people don't care or don't even know about the filibuster, so its abolition would take little political capital. Also, all evidence suggests Republicans do not get punished for being obstructionists, as was seen in 2010 and 2014.


It's not like Democrats have 55 seats and the filibuster is the only thing standing in Democrats' way of passing policy. They would have to have their entire caucus united to pass anything, which is never a guarantee. I do think Democrats would face consequences if Republicans hammer that Democrats are refusing to work with the other side. If Democrats lose their slim majority in 2022, they won't be able to do anything. I would not say that Republicans are immune to political consequences. There is a reason McConnell's favorability ratings are so low. In fact, obstructing additional stimulus is the only reason Democrats have the Senate in the first place.

The difference between having the filibuster and not having it is the difference between passing a small part of your agenda and passing a large part of your agenda. Yes, with their razor-thin majorities, Democrats won’t be able to pass everything they want, even without the filibuster. The point is, getting rid of it would help a lot.

You say Democrats have to compromise to keep Congress in 2022. I don’t know why Democrats need to be so careful about appearing bipartisan and willing to work with the other side of the aisle when the other side of the aisle has made it clear, time and time again, that it is not willing to cooperate with them in any way, shape or form. And, as I’ve already pointed out, it has done so in the past without facing any significant punishment from the voters. Of course they aren’t immune to political consequences, but they did not lose the Senate for obstructing stimulus, they had a done deal on it with the Democrats. The main problem for them in Georgia was, among others, that the Democrats capitalized on Donald Trump’s sudden refusal to agree to the negotiated package and demand for 2,000$ checks from Senate Republicans, a key Democratic proposal thrust into the spotlight by the president’s move.

And even in case you are right and Democrats do face some sort of backlash in the midterms for lack of compromise with the other side (which I reiterate, Democrats have offered but Republicans have rejected), my counterpoint is that they are going to most likely lose at least the House whatever they do or don’t do, so they might as well ram through a filibuster-free Senate everything they can during the next two years.



I was referring to obstruction of the $2000. And keeping the Senate while losing the House still allows for judicial appointments.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2021, 03:50:52 PM »

This debate is academic at this point. With only 51 seats, and both Biden and Manchin opposed, right now the filibuster is mainly a bogeyman the Democrats can use to incentivize the Republicans not to be totally obstructionist on non reconciliation bills. As such, the Dems have no reason to argue in favor of the filibuster right now, but it likely is not going to fall as long as the GOP plays a modicum of ball.
Logged
Benjamin Frank
Frank
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,069


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2021, 01:51:46 AM »
« Edited: January 24, 2021, 02:38:01 AM by Frank »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.

The thing is that, policy-wise, Democrats have much more to gain from the abolition of the filibuster than Republicans do. Why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't abolish the filibuster when he was in the majority and is now fighting tooth and nail to preserve while in the minority? There are two main reason for this:

First, today's GOP has little agenda beyond confirming conservative justices (which they can already do with a simple majority since the filibuster was abolished on judicial nominations) and passing tax cuts (which they can do through reconciliation), so the filibuster isn't really problem for them.

Second, several items of the Democratic agenda would be very hard to roll back by a future Republican Congress. Take a hypothetical Democrat-established universal healthcare system, for example. Attempting to dismantle it would be the Obamacare repeal and replace debacle on steroids, a massive backlash would ensue. Rather, the GOP might be forced to do what the British Conservative Party did in the 1950s, which was accepting the welfare state created by Clement Attlee's Labour government (in spite of previously claiming that it would take "some sort of Gestapo" to function).

About the electoral consequences Democrats would face if they removed the filibuster, I have to say I disagree with you. Most people don't care or don't even know about the filibuster, so its abolition would take little political capital. Also, all evidence suggests Republicans do not get punished for being obstructionists, as was seen in 2010 and 2014.


It's not like Democrats have 55 seats and the filibuster is the only thing standing in Democrats' way of passing policy. They would have to have their entire caucus united to pass anything, which is never a guarantee. I do think Democrats would face consequences if Republicans hammer that Democrats are refusing to work with the other side. If Democrats lose their slim majority in 2022, they won't be able to do anything. I would not say that Republicans are immune to political consequences. There is a reason McConnell's favorability ratings are so low. In fact, obstructing additional stimulus is the only reason Democrats have the Senate in the first place.

It can also be argued, contrary to what you've argued, that if the Democrats eliminate the filibuster, that, with the Republicans now knowing that Democratic legislation might not be able to pass the Senate, that rather than simply obstructing, that at least some Republicans would now come to the table to offer ideas for consideration so as to have a say in new legislation.  There are, at present, probably seven or eight Republicans on any potential legislation (different Republicans on different legislation) who might be interested in advancing constructive ideas rather than just wanting to be in opposition.

Of course, some might argue that if you take these differing seven or eight Republicans on most issues and add it to the 50 Democrats, that you get to roughly breaking a filibuster anyway, and that might end up what Democrats have to hope for, but this from Clinton to Obama ignores group dynamics and the iron discipline of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has realized that by sticking together to obstruct they will gain more electorally even as individual Republican Senators might wish to advance constructive legislation by working with the Democrats.  I think there was a clear example of this on immigration reform when several Republican Senators, led by Marco Rubio, ended up opposing legislation they had initially sponsored.

The hope here, without the elimination of the filibuster, is that Republicans realize that blocking legislation for more than 20 years up to 2016 was a major contributor to the rise of Donald Trump and that at least enough Republican Senators now appreciate how dangerous their cynical game has been.  However, there certainly doesn't seem to be any indication Mitch McConnell cares, and if the Senate Republicans keep him as their leader, that would be an indication Republicans don't care as a whole either.

Also, outside of the major media outlets and some in the Democratic Party 'civility police' who seem to be in love with the concept of 'bipartisanship' I doubt the vast majority of the public pays much attention to whether popular legislation is passed with bipartisan agreement or whether it's just the Democrats.  I have no doubt the Republicans would rile up their base by arguing that no Republican voted for such legislation, but I doubt most voters would care.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2021, 07:21:17 AM »

This debate is academic at this point. With only 51 seats, and both Biden and Manchin opposed, right now the filibuster is mainly a bogeyman the Democrats can use to incentivize the Republicans not to be totally obstructionist on non reconciliation bills. As such, the Dems have no reason to argue in favor of the filibuster right now, but it likely is not going to fall as long as the GOP plays a modicum of ball.

I think President Biden mostly wants to try an initial outreach to Republicans, but I don't think he's going to accept getting rolled over by an obstinate minority in the Senate. Democrats cannot go into the midterms with one or two reconciliation bills and nothing else. Joe Manchin is 73 (I'm surprised by that, since he looks at least 15 years younger than that) and may not even run for reelection. Even so, he's already voted to convict and remove Donald Trump. Is a vote for the nuclear option really going to matter to West Virginia voters more than that? Under a Democratic Majority, he is the Chair of Energy Committee. Democrats have a far better chance of keeping their majorities by acting for the American people. I don't think Joe Manchin wants to go back to being ranking member in two years.

I would agree that the Senate is supposed to be about compromise. That has nothing to do with the filibuster. Has the 6-year McConnell reign of the Senate led to more compromise and deal-making? Of course not. Eliminate the filibuster and open up the process. The House and the Presidency are still a check on anything crazy, just as the others are checks upon one another.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,759
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2021, 06:20:54 AM »

Of course it's gonna stay but D's have 3 open seats and 2 Vulnerable D's, the Election will be dependent on how voters view the Economy next yr, 2 yrs is a long time

It's a 2 yr agreement and if Ds get 54-46 Senate, the nuke option is gonna be in play and nuke the filibuster
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2022, 07:25:23 PM »

My argument has aged well. If the Democrats had gotten rid of the filibuster, Republicans would surely punish them by banning abortion nationwide after getting a trifecta.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,319
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2022, 07:30:30 PM »

My argument has aged well. If the Democrats had gotten rid of the filibuster, Republicans would surely punish them by banning abortion nationwide after getting a trifecta.

Fortunately the Democrats have been responsible stewards of the Constitution and specifically the Commerce Clause, which renders such efforts null and unthinkable.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2022, 12:21:39 AM »

My argument has aged well. If the Democrats had gotten rid of the filibuster, Republicans would surely punish them by banning abortion nationwide after getting a trifecta.

And you think "we can't let ourselves pass policy because They might pass policy back at us the next time They win" is a healthy way to govern a country why, exactly?
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2022, 03:04:18 AM »
« Edited: June 27, 2022, 02:15:24 PM by Blue3 »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

First, the Senate should be destroyed.

Second, the Senate is already unfairly biased towards Republicans, giving the minority of Americans in less-populated GOP states much more power than the majority.

Third, the Senate is no longer about bipartisan compromise, if it ever was.

Fourth, sometimes being radical is both good and necessary.

Fifth, I'm fine with Republicans also having no filibuster. Last time they had total control they only cared about tax cuts and justices, their true priority. Let people experience what Republicans want to do, or call their bluff on it.
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2022, 03:24:34 PM »
« Edited: June 27, 2022, 03:30:00 PM by AGA »

My argument has aged well. If the Democrats had gotten rid of the filibuster, Republicans would surely punish them by banning abortion nationwide after getting a trifecta.

And you think "we can't let ourselves pass policy because They might pass policy back at us the next time They win" is a healthy way to govern a country why, exactly?

It is for the same reason why packing the court is a bad idea. Republicans would just retaliate by doing it when they get in power. The status quo is acceptable for Democrats because people can still travel to blue states to get abortions. It would be unwise for them risk having abortion banned nationwide. Also, stability in government is generally a good thing.
Logged
The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow
slightlyburnttoast
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,050
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -5.43

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2022, 04:01:02 PM »

I don't think proponents of the filibuster grasp just how much easier it is to pass legislation in other high-income nations than it is in the United States. Even if we abolished the filibuster, which we should, the legislative process would still be more difficult here than for most of our international contemporaries. The notion that we would descend into irreparable instability if we made legislating a bit easier is just not supported by what we see around the world.
Logged
Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom
theflyingmongoose
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,293
Norway


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2022, 10:29:28 PM »

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.

The thing is that, policy-wise, Democrats have much more to gain from the abolition of the filibuster than Republicans do. Why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't abolish the filibuster when he was in the majority and is now fighting tooth and nail to preserve while in the minority? There are two main reason for this:

First, today's GOP has little agenda beyond confirming conservative justices (which they can already do with a simple majority since the filibuster was abolished on judicial nominations) and passing tax cuts (which they can do through reconciliation), so the filibuster isn't really problem for them.

Second, several items of the Democratic agenda would be very hard to roll back by a future Republican Congress. Take a hypothetical Democrat-established universal healthcare system, for example. Attempting to dismantle it would be the Obamacare repeal and replace debacle on steroids, a massive backlash would ensue. Rather, the GOP might be forced to do what the British Conservative Party did in the 1950s, which was accepting the welfare state created by Clement Attlee's Labour government (in spite of previously claiming that it would take "some sort of Gestapo" to function).

About the electoral consequences Democrats would face if they removed the filibuster, I have to say I disagree with you. Most people don't care or don't even know about the filibuster, so its abolition would take little political capital. Also, all evidence suggests Republicans do not get punished for being obstructionists, as was seen in 2010 and 2014.


It's not like Democrats have 55 seats and the filibuster is the only thing standing in Democrats' way of passing policy. They would have to have their entire caucus united to pass anything, which is never a guarantee. I do think Democrats would face consequences if Republicans hammer that Democrats are refusing to work with the other side. If Democrats lose their slim majority in 2022, they won't be able to do anything. I would not say that Republicans are immune to political consequences. There is a reason McConnell's favorability ratings are so low. In fact, obstructing additional stimulus is the only reason Democrats have the Senate in the first place.

They might lose a lot of seats. But (if I was a progressive) I'd be fine just sitting there for 2-6 years with nothing being done if priorities I like were already implemented.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2022, 11:21:51 AM »

My argument has aged well. If the Democrats had gotten rid of the filibuster, Republicans would surely punish them by banning abortion nationwide after getting a trifecta.

And you think "we can't let ourselves pass policy because They might pass policy back at us the next time They win" is a healthy way to govern a country why, exactly?

It is dumb for abortion to go on this route. The benefit is basically red states may have open clinics which may not decide to open in fear of the next Republican trifecta coming pretty soon anyway. Meanwhile said Republican Trifecta could restrict blue states alltogether.

The Status quo here is that abortion remains virtually unrestricted in blue states which can be travelled to for most people . The status quo is clearly the superior option for the pro choice side and its absurd to want to nuke the filibuster over this.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 11 queries.