Should Schumer nuke the last remaining filibuster?

It’s current form is exactly as it was conceptualized.

 

So, you’re not going to answer the question. I kind of figured that.

 

Absolutely agree. Unless he does, he will empower McTreason to obstruct Biden's agenda just as he obstructed Obama's. It's time for the majority to rule.

 

The current system is bad enough, and yours is even worse.

 

I just asked you a question, 'how is it relevant to the OP', and you refused to answer.

If you want to me answer a question that is irrelevant to the thread, , start a thread in which the question is relevant, and then I'd be happy to answer.

 

If you don't know what a filibuster is, there is probably much about civics you do not know. It's basically something one would learn in a civics 101 class.

You have google, use it. But, a civics 101 class at your local community college is recommended, especially on a political debate forum where most of us take it for granted one knows this stuff.

 

he should wait, if republicans try to block everything and anything, even the things they agree with, then remove it, but wait and see

 

I already addressed the OP earlier. I responded to other comments as the discussion progressed.

 

That is the best idea.

 

Well, as time passes, and it become glaringly and painfully clear McConnell is using every little trick he can devise in order to bog down what Dems want to accomplish, maybe he can get the votes. There is a way that the Senate majority leader can nuke the filibuster without a formal vote, which is what I believe Reid did in 2013.

 

Thanks for you honest insights.

 

Hear hear.
Vote out every incumbent coward.

 

I know what it is.
It hasn't been used in over 20 yrs

 

Though our wonderfully unclear news media often portrays this as something done by Reid or McConnell, that is only part of the story; a vote is still required. News is not good, ironically, at explaining what they report; luckily, wikipedia is:

At times, the "nuclear option" has been proposed to eliminate the 60 vote threshold for certain matters before the Senate. The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a standing rule of the Senate, including the 60-vote rule to close debate, by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules.

 

Ahhh, no.....

Your wikipedia entry merely describes what nuking the filibuster achieves, ie., leaving the vote for simple majority ("up or down vote" ) rather than 60 votes.

Your wiki entry doesn't actually describe how to end the filibuster, which can be done in a few ways, so....

To that point, I stated that there is a way that nuking the filibuster can be achieved without having a vote on a rule change:

https://www.brookings.edu/policy202...uster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/

How would eliminating the filibuster actually work?

The most straightforward way to eliminate the filibuster would be to formally change the text of Senate Rule 22, the cloture rule that requires 60 votes to end debate on legislation. Here’s the catch: Ending debate on a resolution to change the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Absent a large, bipartisan Senate majority that favors curtailing the right to debate, a formal change in Rule 22 is extremely unlikely.

A more complicated, but more likely, way to ban the filibuster would be to create a new Senate precedent. The chamber’s precedents exist alongside its formal rules to provide additional insight into how and when its rules have been applied in particular ways. Importantly, this approach to curtailing the filibuster—colloquially known as the “nuclear option” and more formally as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.

The nuclear option leverages the fact that a new precedent can be created by a senator raising a point of order, or claiming that a Senate rule is being violated. If the presiding officer (typically a member of the Senate) agrees, that ruling establishes a new precedent. If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. If a majority of the Senate votes to reverse the decision of the chair, then the opposite of the chair’s ruling becomes the new precedent.

In both 2013 and 2017, the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support. In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule.

 

Yep, basically, it's the Animal Farm way. All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

 

No they shouldn't, but they are going to. That's why when Psaki got the question about Pres Biden's position in the first WH press briefings of his administration she dodged it hard, then dodged it again in follow up. They spent the morning preaching about unity and the afternoon telegraphing how phony their intentions towards it are. Plus, Pres Biden is not going to tolerate road-blocks. He is every bit as crass and short-tempered as Pres Trump is, he's just incredibly feeble and slow so it doesn't signal as hard. But as he crams his radical race agenda, and open borders, and the handing of our economy over to China, and the crippling of our energy independence, and every other thing his far-left string-pullers are going to convince him to do, hes not going to want anyone standing in his way pointing out the flaws. Expect the filibuster to be gone by March.

 

MConnell is notorious for intentionally blocking democrats every concievable and petty way he can. And now the right is whining about democrats not kissing their butts.

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn, repubs are soon to be gone with the wind.

 

Guess you've never heard of a guy called Harry Reid, former Majority Leader who was known around The Capitol to boast about how many bills he intentionally let die on his desk because he could. Maybe if something isn't popular enough to get even the slightest amount of bi-partisan support then it shouldn't pass - ever think about it like that? Nah, why bother considering people who don't submit to their will? Just make up lies about them, get them canceled, black-bag them so they cant spread dissent, and then go back to pretending everyone else is a fascist.

 

Sure, go ahead and nuke the whole filibuster thing. Nothing like making sure that the minority has no voice in legislation. amiright? Hell, why not get rid of the whole 2/3rds voting system also while you're at it. Let's see just how far people are really willing to go to push their agenda's onto everyone else.

 

You mean the traditional filibuster, not the clerical one being used currently.

 

You mean the genius that blamed Trump for the public "erection" in the capitol? Yea, he's brilliant.

 

Allow me to enlighten you the scheme that McConnell is currently plotting:

(from: https://theweek.com/articles/962414/mcconnell-already-moving-strangle-biden-presidency )

...the leader of the Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell, is already plotting to throttle this government in the crib. He is demanding Democrats preserve his ability to block anything they propose with the Senate filibuster, so he can ruin the country and blame it on them, and he is gambling that moderate Democratic senators will be too scared to call his bluff. Democrats should tell McConnell to go pound sand, and nuke the filibuster right now.

[,,,]

Now McConnell has broken yet another Senate norm by threatening to filibuster the Organizing Resolution unless Democrats agree to keep the legislative filibuster for the next two years. To the best of my knowledge, filibustering the initial organizational rule package in a new Congress has never happened before. (Incidentally, since the Senate will continue to operate under its current rules, that leaves Republicans in charge of the committees so long as it is not passed.)

Now do you see?

McConnell has done a calculation -- he believes the moderate democrats won't vote to nuke the filibuster ( one nay is all it will take) so he's betting that threatening to filibuster the organizing resolution ( the resolution that the new majority enacts for committee assignments, which, if not passed, the minority repubs keep their prior majority committee assignments ) in order squeeze Schumer to codify into law, a guarantee Schumer won't nuke the filibuster for two years.

Now, why is McConnell doing this? Because, he intends to use the filibuster to block everything the dems propose, and then he can blame democrat failure and inaction on democrats to bolster his chances of taking back the senate in two years.

That is the scheme.

Now do you see? McConnell leaves us no choice but to nuke it on rule 20, an up or down vote on nuking the filibuster. But, Schumer has the difficult task of getting guys like Manchin, a staunch traditionalist, to go along with it.

Please, spare us the self-righteousness act.

 

The filibuster needs to go. It assumes that our government could function in a bipartisan basis but that obviously isn't true any more. In the same way we changed the Supreme Court nomination rules to only require a simple majority. Smart move.

 

Dear mother of NO. You just inflated our divisions and problems by a BILLION with this proposal. Imagine some voters having more of a weighted vote than the other. And imagine these voters will know who has more sway than their fellow contemporary. You think we have storming capitals now? Just wait in that system lol.