Sen. Angus King (I-VT), who caucuses with Democrats and is a member of the Senate Rules Committee, on Sunday said that although he’s reluctant to nix the filibuster altogether, he is open to a “talking filibuster” or “alternative” as Democrats revive the debate over the Senate rule in the aftermath of Republicans filibustering the Freedom to Vote Act.
Amen, Brother. Now get Manchimema to join the congregation, not the corporations.
whatever… as long as the super majority that must be passed to even discuss a bill is dead.
Anyone who votes for trump or a trump approved candidate should under go an intervention.
“It’s going to come back and it could come back to bite those who want to move things forward right now,” King said. “Today’s obnoxious obstruction tomorrow could be a precious shield.”
I appreciate Sen. King’s willingness to advocate for reform, no matter how small the baby steps, but if there’s anyone who still doesn’t get that McConnell will shiv your gut through that illusory “shield” – the picosecond it gets in the way of a GOP power grab – then I’ve got some swamp land in Arizona to sell them.
You misspelled “lobotomy”.
OK Angus… how is it that the House functions, discusses bills and votes by simple majority without that goddamned filibuster super majority rule. Explain that to me Angus, I’ll listen. Why must there be a 60 vote threshold to get over in the Senate TO EVEN FUCKING DEBATE A BILL let alone vote on one. It’s a stupid rule in my opinion. What is wrong with the Senate debating bills and then voting on them? Why must the minority ruin it for all? In the last Congress Mitch McConnell had the majority he refused to bring forward over 450 House passed bills 1/3rd of which were bipartisan bills. As it is Mitch has his thumb on the jugular of Biden’s agenda. And he is in the minority!!! That’s not right.
100% pure Angus.
Sen. Angus King (I-VT)
Sen. Angus King (I-VT) (I-ME)
Aw c’mon…
I think most have assumed (hopefully correctly) that 48 Democratic or Democratic-leaning members in the Senate are already onboard with reforming the filibuster in some way, so unless there’s new news about the two usual suspects, these type of stories just don’t pack much of a punch.
I’m not saying I’m not interested in the various permutations of reform, but it seems moot without assent from the two holdouts.
yawn
How about some strategic originalism from our side? Pound the messaging over and over: the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. It arose out of a mistake. It became a tool of obstruction. It has to go.
Really this seems to be a no-brainer here. There is a romantic attachment in the public (of a certain age) and among Senators to the Filibuster…
So a smart political move is not to outright eliminate it but rather make it really seriously painful to execute. Up the cost-of-utilization (talking on the floor no breaks etc). There the Dems get to play a smarter, conservative game. Rather than appearing as radicals blowing up a pseudo-tradition pseudo-cherished, wind it back and make it seriously old-school and painful.
I think that way the Manchins and the Republicans are deprived of ammunition to attack the reform.
The House is a different institution… so appeal to the House is really both bad inside Congress politics and bad overall approach to the dynamics.
A significant reason the 60 votes has become default is that the cost -operational cost in particular - of using the filibuster was watered down and removed.
Angus’ demarche is actually very clever because politically it is small c conservative and a reform that would render the filibuster by Senate rules painful for the filibustering Senators / Party to use by making it very old school, very time consuming on their end, etc. transfers the burden and is harder to oppose.
Pointy headed gghead arguments that will fail in the no-history populist podcast-shock-jock broadcast world.
Angus has the right angle to try.
They’re not mutually exclusive. The whole justification for keeping the filibuster is it’s “tradition.”
Nevertheless they do not have a filibuster before debating a bill and the Senate has had this hurdle only since the two track system of the 1970’s.
So prior to that time cloture required a simple majority vote and not the 60 vote level of today. So, as I said, why not do as Angus King suggests and have a senator blabber until he drops from exhaustion?
From the Brookings article on the history:
The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.
Of course I would be ecstatic if they would at least roll back the filibuster rules to make senators blabber on topic til exhaustion, while senators from their own party have to sit and listen to them in person. Maybe make them score over 75 percent on a quiz, too.
Talking filibuster as heard by my min-pins.
