Democrats could end Senate filibuster to advance agenda in 2021

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Democrats, increasingly hopeful they can retake the White House and Senate in November, are discussing changing Senate rules to pass legislation with a simple majority of votes.

Known as the "nuclear option," the move to eliminate the 60-vote threshold currently needed to end debate in a full Senate would allow a Joe Biden administration - and a Democrat-led Congress - to act swiftly on key party priorities, including climate change, voting rights and gun control, with just 51 votes.

It's a possibility that the former vice president, who spent 36 years in the Senate, recently signaled more interest in considering - and one that could have significant implications for governing.

"If Biden wins, one of the most important discussions he's going to have with Schumer and Pelosi is whether to pull the trigger or not," James Manley, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide, said of the rule change. "The pressure from the base is going to be so strong, the demands are going to be so pent up, they're going to have to make their move sooner rather than later."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-could-end-senate-filibuster-to-advance-agenda-in-2021/ar-BB16U4Ix?li=BBnb7Kz

[dalton99a]

1. It is a must. Do it.

Kill the filibuster, or live under Republican rule forever.

[Nevilledog]

2. +1

[LakeArenal]

3. It should have ended long ago.

Along with the electoral college.

[leftieNanner]

4. The Filibuster used to have a valid purpose

Until Mitch McConnell abused it.

He has broken the US Senate and smashed it to smithereens. It's time to get some good things done for the people.

[Tom Traubert]

28. Do we really want this?

What happens should the Republicans again get a majority in the future? This scares me.

[CrispyQ]

5. Go bold, dem leadership! Or we'll be fighting this fight again and again! -nt

[jimfields33]

21. i like the idea. I loved when Senator Reid got rid of the judges nuclear option

But then it really ended up sucking big time with 200 right wing judges all over the country that will try to stop president Biden at every turn.

[CrispyQ]

22. If dem leadership doesn't go bold and fix some of the critical issues facing this country,

the voters will vote the repubs back in charge of the Senate & the House in 4-8 years. It's a cycle. Repubs fuck everything up to the point of disaster. Dems then have 4-8 years to fix everything & if we don't do it fast enough or good enough, people go back to voting repub. There's a segment that just never fucking learns—STOP VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS!

[jimfields33]

23. A vicious cycle indeed.

[Sneederbunk]

6. Gitter done.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Scorched Earth- no filibuster, expand SCOTUS, Nuremberg tribunals for concentration camps

As well as for the DHS Portland invasion.

I want every future govt. employee or contractor to hesitate and consider the consequences meted out to Trump and his lackeys before they commit crimes against the Constitution and against humanity.

[roamer65]

8. The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution.

Nuke it.


The Senate is already lopsided toward small states. The filibuster isn’t useful anymore.

[OAITW r.2.0]

9. !st order of business with SML Schumer.

Does killing the filibuster require a simple majority?

[unblock]

10. It's gotta happen. The "collegiality" and across-the-aisle respect is gone thanks to republicans

These guys are setting up a fascist state. We can't let them have a tool to block reforms because they will never return the favor.

[dalton99a]

16. +1. Republicans are not our "friends and colleagues across the aisle" anymore

And they're not going to pivot either

[beachbumbob]

11. IF Nov 3rd is a MASSIVE democratic tidal wave where Biden wins

the electoral vote overwhelmingly and say the national vote by 15-20 million margin with a net of 6-8 senate seat gain, I would view this as a MANDATE and the filibuster goes OR modified in a manner that one party can not use it to stop all senate business like McConnell likes to do, America would have no problem at all

[Amishman]

12. Still seems like a bad idea, someday we won't hold the Senate.

And there isn't broad public support for removing it. In general people want more cooperation, not one party rule.

[OnDoutside]

17. In theory you are right. In practice, what really has the current situation

got the Democratic Party, and most importantly, the American people. No where, I would suggest. However, if they were to do it, they need to secretly agree to it now, and have a trailblazing plan of enactments, during the first 12 months of the new Congress. If these changes were to be slowed down beyond that, you risk the usual inertia gripping Washington again. And you can be sure Republicans will try to stop as many bills as possible.

IF the Democrats can transform America and keep all 3 branches for 8 years, it would profoundly transform the politics too.

[Amishman]

27. The problem is most of America doesn't want to be transformed

For all the presence in social media, progressives are far from a majority.

I fear we risk getting ourselves voted out if we push too hard on controversial topics. The focus should be areas where public support is easily 2/3rds or more - this means healthcare, labor reforms, taxing the rich, and the environment.

[OnDoutside]

29. Most don't know enough about their country or the world, the low

information American.

It depends on what you include as progressive. The use of the word over the last 4 years appears to have been appropriated by Sanders and beyond, but the reality is that most Americans want good healthcare and decent wages. I believe that the Democrats will win big in November, and will probably result in a civil war of recriminations within the GOP. I think Democrats have one shot at this, go big on

Fixing the ACA, and the exchanges.
Go big on infrastructure, transforming America
Bring in the common sense Gun control that most Americans want
Bring in the bipartisan Immigration bill that McConnell blocked

Get all that done in the first 6 months, and don't take no for an answer from Republicans. This is a baseline.

[Midnight Writer]

26. If we don't do it, they will, when they have the power. I'm surprised they haven't already.

[Wounded Bear]

13. Kill the fillibuster...without that nothing else gets done...

It is past time. I used to defend the fillibuster, but the Repubs weaponized it and used it to kill democracy in America.

[BlueTsunami2018]

14. Imagine if the gop did this in Тяцмр's first two years.

Like he was asking for, it would be a disaster. It all sounds good in this hypothetical situation but with the shoe on the other foot, it looks horrible.

[leanforward]

15. Tyranny of the minority

I'm thinking that this filibuster rule of 60 needs to go away. Similar to the Electoral College rule. We know what happened in 2000 with Gore and 2016 with Clinton.
As we look back in history, by design the less populated states control the more populated states, but within social programs each individual citizen receives the same benefit. Keep in mind Senators use to be appointed. A holdover of thought that rich or more influential leaders knew more that the voting masses. Then the Senate membership went to the popular vote.
The Electoral College is a holdover from the days of royalty and rich folks. The Filibuster relates to the same thought pattern, royalty and rich folks "know more than the voting masses".
The Electoral College will be more difficult to amend/change. But, we have to do it.

[dalton99a]

18. +1. We cannot allow Republicans to use a bullshit Senate rule to perpetuate their control.

Elections have consequences.

Kill the filibuster.

[andym]

19. They can keep the filibuster, but lower the threshold

to the number of Democratic senators for example, or even powe. The threshold was 66 at one time, and now 60, so 51 could be the number.

[Jeebo]

20. Don't kill the filibuster, just allocate it, like time outs in a football game.

Each party gets to use the filibuster, let's say, four times per two-year legislative session. That's the way the filibuster used to be used, very sparingly. This would force a return to those days.

Or, the rule change could be that if you're going to filibuster, you have to actually DO IT. You just have to actually stand there and talk non-stop. Reading out of an 800-page law book or the New York City telephone directory. Until your bladder or sheer fatigue makes it impossible for you to continue. Like Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". Or like Wendy Davis in the Texas state legislature.

-- Ron

[moose65]

25. But one party wouldn't need it

The majority party in the Senate wouldn’t need the filibuster. A filibuster is a tactic to STOP something by extending debate. The majority party sets the agenda, so they wouldn’t need or want to filibuster their own legislation!

The filibuster used to be rarely used. It was not until the Clinton years and then the Obama years that the Republicans in the Senate went berserk and threatened to filibuster everything proposed by the Democrats.

Part of me wishes the filibuster would go away. Elections have consequences, and the majority party needs the chance to either succeed or fail miserably. On the other hand, I’m glad that the filibuster existed during the first two years of Trump. I do think that the “threat” of the filibuster shouldn’t be enough - if it survives, they should have to stay on the floor in a diaper and read the phone book until they pass out.

[Celerity]

24. Manchin and others will not go along. I am sure many on here will agree (I do NOT)

Be very skeptical when a 2020 Democrat says they’ll get stuff done by getting rid of the filibuster

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/05/be-very-skeptical-when-democrat-says-theyll-get-stuff-done-by-getting-rid-filibuster/