Wouldn't the sensible thing be to reform the filibuster so the minority gets a chance to change public opinion or some Senate votes before a bill passes, without keeping it as a de facto 60 vote requirement with no debate whatsoever? Even if we think Republicans will keep it in place, it makes little sense to keep it in its current form--it'd serve our purposes just as well if it required actual debate.
Yep--also, just from a pure "what is best for the system of passing laws" standpoint, it makes sense to make it a "real" filibuster--actual debate has to take place, not just this "anyone sends an email that they'll object to cloture, and that triggers 60 votes, and kills the bill, done" nonsense we have now.
Well yeah, but by the same token is there anyway to stop the GOP just doing it anyway the next time they get the chance? If eliminating the filibuster now gets HR1 passed then maybe they won't be able to just summarily install a fascist state in 22 or 24. If they somehow get voted in anyway there's no fucking way that Dems having kept the filibuster in place will stop them.
I think if there was legitimate legislation that the GOP wanted to pass, they would’ve nuked the filibuster. I don’t think McConnell and the GOP care that much about norms. They killed what mattered to them (SCOTUS nominations).
I get the point about the ACA repeal, but I tend to look at it from the POV that the ACA would never have passed in the first place without a once-in-a-lifetime, impossible to reproduce super majority. Democrats will never have 60 seats in the House (the GOP have a Senate advantage and that is also still a reach for them). So, the filibuster doesn’t so much make change hard as prevent any actual change.
One thing that hurt the GOP with ACA repeal is that it is harder to remove rights/benefits that people already have. The ACA repeal was poison (mostly because the GOP’s “repeal and replace” position was BS).
I do get what you're saying but your whole argument rests on the assumption that Repubs will continue to allow the filibuster just because Dems did, and I'm not really confident that's a sound assumption.
That's the rub--also, one of the reasons Republicans didn't go with wholesale ACA repeal is that some provisions (pre-existing conditions) were popular with their own voters, and they knew it'd be easier to find the votes to just get rid of the individual mandate and Medicaid expansions. Being able to say "we can't get it past the filibuster" gives the majority a chance to not pass things where they're afraid of blowback.
Byrd was a close ally of Ted Kennedy and a favorite punching bag for the Republicans. They excoriated him for such foolish uses of fed money as what you mentioned and, as I recall, a cancer center at WVU, a pharmacy school at Marshall, upgraded science facilities at WV colleges, improved river transportation, tech centers, and more. He was a New Deal liberal and, of course, a staunch defender of coal.
It's like Sinema's one of the cluelessly naive administrators in The Good Place who can't comprehend evil.
and just as cynical.
Wouldn't the sensible thing be to reform the filibuster so the minority gets a chance to change public opinion or some Senate votes before a bill passes, without keeping it as a de facto 60 vote requirement with no debate whatsoever? Even if we think Republicans will keep it in place, it makes little sense to keep it in its current form--it'd serve our purposes just as well if it required actual debate.
He seems to be doing that so far.
Yep--also, just from a pure "what is best for the system of passing laws" standpoint, it makes sense to make it a "real" filibuster--actual debate has to take place, not just this "anyone sends an email that they'll object to cloture, and that triggers 60 votes, and kills the bill, done" nonsense we have now.
Well yeah, but by the same token is there anyway to stop the GOP just doing it anyway the next time they get the chance? If eliminating the filibuster now gets HR1 passed then maybe they won't be able to just summarily install a fascist state in 22 or 24. If they somehow get voted in anyway there's no fucking way that Dems having kept the filibuster in place will stop them.
I think if there was legitimate legislation that the GOP wanted to pass, they would’ve nuked the filibuster. I don’t think McConnell and the GOP care that much about norms. They killed what mattered to them (SCOTUS nominations).
I get the point about the ACA repeal, but I tend to look at it from the POV that the ACA would never have passed in the first place without a once-in-a-lifetime, impossible to reproduce super majority. Democrats will never have 60 seats in the House (the GOP have a Senate advantage and that is also still a reach for them). So, the filibuster doesn’t so much make change hard as prevent any actual change.
One thing that hurt the GOP with ACA repeal is that it is harder to remove rights/benefits that people already have. The ACA repeal was poison (mostly because the GOP’s “repeal and replace” position was BS).
I do get what you're saying but your whole argument rests on the assumption that Repubs will continue to allow the filibuster just because Dems did, and I'm not really confident that's a sound assumption.
It's easy for King Manchin to support the rollback of the Trump tax cuts when he knows there is no chance it will happen.
Republicans don't need the filibuster because they have the courts to get rid of legislation they don't like.
And anti-LGBT bigotry.
Man of LaManchin keeps tilting at that bipartisanship windmill. I'm sure it's just fine.
Holy crap, the linkbots are swarming in here like bedbugs at a T***p hotel.
A Slow Morning here. I read the headline about 10 times before I finally got the joke. Good One!
That's the rub--also, one of the reasons Republicans didn't go with wholesale ACA repeal is that some provisions (pre-existing conditions) were popular with their own voters, and they knew it'd be easier to find the votes to just get rid of the individual mandate and Medicaid expansions. Being able to say "we can't get it past the filibuster" gives the majority a chance to not pass things where they're afraid of blowback.
Byrd was a close ally of Ted Kennedy and a favorite punching bag for the Republicans. They excoriated him for such foolish uses of fed money as what you mentioned and, as I recall, a cancer center at WVU, a pharmacy school at Marshall, upgraded science facilities at WV colleges, improved river transportation, tech centers, and more. He was a New Deal liberal and, of course, a staunch defender of coal.
He voted twice to impeach Trump while representing a state that cast 75% of its votes for Trump.