Reply With Quote
MY sarcastic, facetioius
Joe Manchin has indicated he might be open to changing the rules short of abolition (for example, by requiring the minority hold the floor), while McConnell predictably says he'll slow down the legislative calendar if the rules change.
MY sarcastic, facetioius
*checks notes* is a strong clue, thanks for holding our hands
when it got out that Manchin was open to some kind of filibuster modification, he walked it back
he suggested making the filibustering person actually read stuff for hours, rather than just an email "I filibuster you bill"
That's actually a good idea.
I had no idea this was happening today.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bide...ry?id=76499156President Joe Biden on Tuesday said he supports changing the Senate’s filibuster rule back to requiring senators talk on the floor to hold up a bill, the first time he has endorsed reforming the procedure the White House has for weeks insisted the president is opposed to eliminating.
The comments, made in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, could galvanize reform advocates who argue that the legislative filibuster is stymying Biden's agenda in the narrowly divided Senate.
"Aren't you going to have to choose between preserving the filibuster, and advancing your agenda?" Stephanopoulos asked Biden in their interview outside Philadelphia.
"Yes, but here's the choice: I don't think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days," Biden said. "You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking."
Definitely want to watch ing Fled Cruz read Dr. Suess again. Let the asshole pick out the books that got discontinued.
I mean, objectively it's preferable, if filibusters exist, for those giving the filibuster to have to be present and filibustering. But I don't see how the distinction makes a fundamental difference for legislative purposes. If anything it rewards the filibusterer more because they get the spotlight and the hero treatment from pundits. (Wendy Davis conned herself a gubernatorial nomination with a filibuster.)
If I had my way, Dems would end the filibuster, pass Voting Rights, give DC and PR statehood, increase capital gains to 50% for top income earners, then vote to re-ins ute the filibuster.
It makes a difference because there are limits to human endurance and they eventually come to an end. Also, the exposure works both ways. Reading Dr. Seuss and free-associating into the record isn't the best look, day after day.
I get that but I guess I'm not familiar enough with the rules. Is there anything stopping them from just passing the baton to each other in perpetuity?
That's a good question. I'll see if I can find anything on what the rules used to be.
Why would you bring back the filibuster after getting rid of it? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course, I also didn't realize they ever stopped doing the in-person filibuster.
In case Republicans gain control again or get enough of the conservative Dems to cross party lines for ty legislation.
Sounds like cloture would have to be changed to a simple majority vote.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/polit...tes/index.htmlAccording to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report on Rule 19, which governs filibusters:
"Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question. It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that 'no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.' This provision, commonly called the two-speech rule, limits each Senator to making two speeches per day, however long each speech may be, on each debatable question the Senate considers. A Senator who has made two speeches on a single question becomes ineligible to be recognized for another speech on the same question on the same day."So every senator who wanted to participate in a filibuster could speak twice every single legislative day. That's still not easy -- since the filibustering group would have to have someone speaking 24 hours a day for as long as they could do it -- it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that a few senators could hold the floor for a considerable amount of time.
"Depending on how it's structured - the critical question, as with anything Senate-related - a small group of senators could talk for days or even weeks," tweeted Punchbowl News' John Bresnahan on Tuesday night. "How does that get reformers any closer? It doesn't."
Then finally, there's this: Once the talking filibuster is over, Democrats would still need 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote. (Unless, of course, they change the legislative filibuster rules to allow cloture to be invoked by a simple majority.)
The Brennan Center explained it all here:
"No longer would a filibuster delay all Senate business. Instead, new Senate procedure would create a dual-tracking system that allowed the body to toggle between different bills so that a bill facing a filibuster was 'kept on the back burner' until a vote for cloture could be successful. This meant that no one observing the Senate would likely realize that a bill was being filibustered, since no one had to take the floor and stay there. This significantly reduced the public relations disincentive to filibuster and made it practically invisible to the public and the media. The talking filibuster had died; all a senator needed to do was indicate an intention to filibuster in order to move a bill to the end of the queue or 'the back burner.'"
Wow, that's garbage.
it was to prevent grandstanding and keep business moving
As we found out with Ron Johnson making the senate clerk read the whole package which took 11 hours, it works to some extent. They were supposed to then debate it for 20 hours and some dem make a change to make it 3 hours and since Ron Johnson or any republicans were in the room at like 2AM they were able to do it.
This is a good first step.
then they would just end the filibuster themselves
If they get control they'd just eliminate it after the precedent has been set. The only reason they don't is because the filibuster allows them to completely derail any Democrat bill except for the yearly reconciliation bill when the Democrats are in power. Meanwhile it doesn't hurt them much when the GOP is in power because all they really give a about is low taxes for the rich and they can pass those through reconciliation. All the other GOP bills are distractions from their serving the oligarchs' agenda and they can play victim when the Democrats don't let them pass like border walls or clamping down on immigration.
Wait till HR -4 hits the Senate floor.
H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act
renamed the “John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2020” on 7/27/2020
It will roll back and invalidate all the hundreds of voter suppression efforts and (gasp) potentially reverse or replace partisan gerrymandering that keeps these fascist, traitorous, corrupt stains in power.
You think they aren't going to fight that with every tool in their arsenal...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/schu...in-senate.htmlSenate Democrats announced the introduction of a comprehensive voting reform bill, the For the People Act, in a press conference Wednesday.
The legislation includes provisions that aim to make it easier to register and vote, prevent gerrymandering, improve election cybersecurity and reform campaign finance, among other initiatives.
The Senate Rules Committee is set to hold a hearing on the bill on March 24.
If I had to bet money, I think the old school rule will be put back into place.
Talk if you want, but you gotta walk the ing walk to do so, and that will be televised, so everyone can see what it is you are saying, and what you are trying to do.
If this thing goes through, the GQP will be dealt a pretty substantial setback because their extremist base will not be able to convince the middle that they aren't extremist whackadoodles who think Democrats control the weather, the moon landing is fake and babies are distilled for tasty drinks.
What's hilarious to me is that conservatives are ing worrying about "gender iden y classes" and 60 year old kids books, while taking their eyes off the ball on messaging for the stimulus.
The whackadoodles aren't disciplined enough or smart enough to present any kind of unified messaging.
While they are worrying about Mulberry Street, the Democratic administration is rolling out a sophisticated PR campaign to victory-lap the stimulus and coming infrastructure bill that will help Main Street.
The own-goal stupidity is shocking, but not surprising. Right wing media doesn't get clicks from obtuse debates on the particulars of a stimulus bill. They get clicks from culture war bull . That is what they are selling now.
Helpless GQP establishment is just sort of standing flabbergasted at the own-team disarray.
pure schadenfruede.
The monster they created to keep themselves in power is now out of their control and smashing everything in the lab while screaming "Mr. potatohead" and "trans women in sports", "athletes kneeling BAD" "cancel culture BAD".
"blocked" = filibustered
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
