Tweet
Should the Senate keep the filibuster or get rid of it?
-
11Keep the filibuster27.27%3Get rid of it72.73%8 -
Normal legislative business doesn’t require a supermajority. Get rid of it. It’s not Constitutional, either. -
Bingo.Originally posted by W*GS View Post
The Filibuster is Unconstitutional
https://robertreich.org/post/661787924514406400
Comment
-
You won't feel that way if Congress and the White House were in Republican hands. If we get rid of the fillibuster it will be chaos.Originally posted by W*GS View PostComment
-
-
At this point, might as well. Let’s see who can slug it to the other the hardest. It won’t be productive, but it will be entertaining….Comment
-
Did you post about getting rid of it when Trump was President? Or George Bush Jr? If not than it seems to me you only want it now to push an agenda you agree with.Originally posted by W*GS View PostComment
-
The country is in a race to the bottom, it’s only a matter of time before it’s gone. The US government is now a zero sum game, all that matters is winning. Mitch McConnell has made that very clear, so why play by the old rules?Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
it’s why I think GOP will push for a nation wide abortion ban….
the fun and games have begun, there isn’t any going backComment
-
There is no way that the Republicans will ever have the power to push through a national ban on abortion. That is why the filibuster is important. It makes sure things like that don't happen unless both sides agree.Originally posted by B-Large View PostComment
-
-
The filibuster turns the minority into the majority. Get rid of it.Originally posted by cutthemdown View PostComment
-
Given a choice between which to abolish, I'd choose the Electoral College 100 times out of 100 over the filibuster. The EC has never had any valid purpose other than to ensure that the wealthy's candidate wins.
The EC turns the minority into the majority....Comment
-
"If Republicans can end the filibuster to install right-wing judges nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote in order to overturn Roe v. Wade," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, "Democrats can and must end the filibuster to keep abortion legal and safe."Comment
-
Too late:Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
2017: Republicans Abandon the Filibuster to Save Neil Gorsuch
If only one side observes the filibuster rule, then it isn't really a rule, is it?Comment
-
I agree. A democracy should not have a back door that allows a minority of the popular vote to win. Even a republic. The very meaning of democracy is that the most votes wins.Originally posted by Blueflame View PostComment
-
If you followed that development you would know that it was the democrats who changed the filibuster on judges first. Then Republicans answered by including Supreme Court Justices. You just unknowingly proved my point. If dems get rid of the fillibuster for more types of votes, when in power the Republicans will answer. In the end we will have chaos.Originally posted by BowlenBall View PostComment
-
Yeah, these hypocrites are comedy gold.Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
"We'll nuke the filibuster for only the level of judiciary we need at the moment. And then pretend like this doesn't tear the gate down for someone else if the judge has a different name or title."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...enate/3662445/
U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules
Like seemingly all the clowns in modern politics. They reaped what they sowed.- Democrats changed Senate rules
- It will make it easier to approve President Obama's nominees
- Republicans warn it will blow up Senate bipartisan relations
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the decision "foolish" and squarely blamed junior Democratic senators. "There are members that have never been in the minority who have been here a short time who basically drove this," he said.
Comment
-
I have noticed the left likes to bitch and moan, but they often don't know the history of their own party and what they have done.Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View PostComment
-
Just think about it. Had Harry Reid not started the ball rolling on eliminating the fillibuster, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett all could have been fillibustered until the Repubs nominated less conservative judges.Comment
-
Yup. And the media even let Reid get it done on the down low (which is why so many on the left seem so unfamiliar)Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
Whereas if Republicans had tried breaking down that wall, unholy media war to 'save the filibuster' would've been waged. Treasons would have been shouted. Houses would've been stalked.Comment
-
This is why I laugh when they say "Pack The Court!"Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View PostComment
-
It's really very stunning how little foresight the modern progressive has. I guess maybe it comes from a lifetime of believing everything is destined to change for the better.Originally posted by cutthemdown View PostComment
-
Nope. A simple majority vote to deal with normal legislative business works for everyone else but the US Senate.Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
Comment
-
-
You don't need a super majority vote for every piece of normal, everyday legislative business.Why? it works better with it. It gives the minority party in the Senate a voice and forces the majority party to compromise. If the voters elect a super majority of 2/3rds then it goes away.
Also, it's unconstitutional:
https://robertreich.org/post/661787924514406400Comment
Comment