When they tell you who they are, you must believe them! Moscow Mitch said on the record, “I am 100% committed to stopping the Biden agenda.” Same thing he said about Obama. " I am 100% committed to making him a one term president". End of discussion.
Would the Republican survive without the quaint and trans-Constitutional filibuster? I’d be willing to find out. If Democrats eliminate it and Republicans are so very offended, they can reinstate the rule when they regain control.
Republicans want to nullify your vote, they want to pretend that you don’t exist, only dictator loving anti democracy republicans exist in their selfish world.
The filibuster, as it is, is only good to ensure minority rule. Anyone can say, “I filibuster”, and it’s all over but the bad press. Filibusters should be returned to their original rules: one person speaks, no interruptions, no other business can be conducted while the filibuster is occurring. This way, it’s preserved for the purists, and Senators who feel the need to filibuster will have to work for it, and deal with pushback from their constituents for, for instance, reading “Green Eggs and Ham”, while people are worried about eviction.
Senators have two options when they seek to vote on a measure or motion. Most often, the majority leader (or another senator) seeks “unanimous consent,” asking if any of the 100 senators objects to ending debate and moving to a vote. If no objection is heard, the Senate proceeds to a vote. If the majority leader can’t secure the consent of all 100 senators, the leader (or another senator) typically files a cloture motion, which then requires 60 votes to adopt. If fewer than 60 senators—a supermajority of the chamber—support cloture, that’s when we often say that a measure has been filibustered.
Exceptions: (1) nominations to executive branch positions and federal judgeships on which, thanks to two procedural changes adopted in 2013 and 2017, only a simple majority is required to end debate. (2) certain types of legislation for which Congress has previously written into law special procedures that limit the amount time for debate. Because there is a specified amount of time for debate in these cases, there is no need to use cloture to cut off debate (budget reconciliation for example).
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.
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, formally known as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.
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.
The Senate could also move to weaken the filibuster without eliminating it entirely. A Senate majority could prevent senators from filibustering the motion used to call up a bill to start (known as the motion to proceed). This would preserve senators’ rights to obstruct the bill or amendment at hand, but would eliminate the supermajority hurdle for starting debate on a legislative measure.
A second option targets the so-called Byrd Rule, a feature of the budget reconciliation process. The Byrd Rule limits the contents of the bill and requires 60 votes to set aside. The majority party could select a parliamentarian who is more willing to advise weaker enforcement of the Byrd Rule, and, indeed, there is some history of the parliamentarian’s application of the Byrd Rule affecting his or her appointment. Alternatively, the senator presiding over the chamber (or the vice president, if he or she is performing that function) could disregard the advice provided to him or her by the parliamentarian, undercutting the efficacy of the Byrd Rule.
Concretionist almost 3 years ago
Ohman sure drew McConnell better looking (and younger) than he is.
dickanders Premium Member almost 3 years ago
When they tell you who they are, you must believe them! Moscow Mitch said on the record, “I am 100% committed to stopping the Biden agenda.” Same thing he said about Obama. " I am 100% committed to making him a one term president". End of discussion.
lucky_irishman5 almost 3 years ago
Funny thing is, the democrats have used the filibuster just as much as the Republicans. Like the saying goes, “be careful what you wish for.”
sevaar777 almost 3 years ago
The death turtle cometh…
oldspacehound almost 3 years ago
What I want is for that bastard Mitch to be gone.
The Nodding Head almost 3 years ago
Would the Republican survive without the quaint and trans-Constitutional filibuster? I’d be willing to find out. If Democrats eliminate it and Republicans are so very offended, they can reinstate the rule when they regain control.
Sgt. Snorkle almost 3 years ago
McConnell: A SOB who should have never been elected!
Radish the wordsmith almost 3 years ago
Republicans want to nullify your vote, they want to pretend that you don’t exist, only dictator loving anti democracy republicans exist in their selfish world.
I Play One On TV almost 3 years ago
The filibuster, as it is, is only good to ensure minority rule. Anyone can say, “I filibuster”, and it’s all over but the bad press. Filibusters should be returned to their original rules: one person speaks, no interruptions, no other business can be conducted while the filibuster is occurring. This way, it’s preserved for the purists, and Senators who feel the need to filibuster will have to work for it, and deal with pushback from their constituents for, for instance, reading “Green Eggs and Ham”, while people are worried about eviction.
Daeder almost 3 years ago
We need to go back to the old rules. Standing filibuster only!
briangj2 almost 3 years ago
Senators have two options when they seek to vote on a measure or motion. Most often, the majority leader (or another senator) seeks “unanimous consent,” asking if any of the 100 senators objects to ending debate and moving to a vote. If no objection is heard, the Senate proceeds to a vote. If the majority leader can’t secure the consent of all 100 senators, the leader (or another senator) typically files a cloture motion, which then requires 60 votes to adopt. If fewer than 60 senators—a supermajority of the chamber—support cloture, that’s when we often say that a measure has been filibustered.
Exceptions: (1) nominations to executive branch positions and federal judgeships on which, thanks to two procedural changes adopted in 2013 and 2017, only a simple majority is required to end debate. (2) certain types of legislation for which Congress has previously written into law special procedures that limit the amount time for debate. Because there is a specified amount of time for debate in these cases, there is no need to use cloture to cut off debate (budget reconciliation for example).
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.
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, formally known as “reform by ruling”—can, in certain circumstances, be employed with support from only a simple majority of senators.
(To be concluded)
briangj2 almost 3 years ago
(Conclusion)
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.
The Senate could also move to weaken the filibuster without eliminating it entirely. A Senate majority could prevent senators from filibustering the motion used to call up a bill to start (known as the motion to proceed). This would preserve senators’ rights to obstruct the bill or amendment at hand, but would eliminate the supermajority hurdle for starting debate on a legislative measure.
A second option targets the so-called Byrd Rule, a feature of the budget reconciliation process. The Byrd Rule limits the contents of the bill and requires 60 votes to set aside. The majority party could select a parliamentarian who is more willing to advise weaker enforcement of the Byrd Rule, and, indeed, there is some history of the parliamentarian’s application of the Byrd Rule affecting his or her appointment. Alternatively, the senator presiding over the chamber (or the vice president, if he or she is performing that function) could disregard the advice provided to him or her by the parliamentarian, undercutting the efficacy of the Byrd Rule.
For further information in the filibuster, see:
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-is-the-senate-filibuster-and-what-would-it-take-to-eliminate-it/