House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Sunday signaled openness to reforming the filibuster to protect voting rights after President Biden suggested he might be open to eliminating the procedure entirely.
Please proceed, Madam Speaker.
Only way to get this country back on track and away from Moscow Mitch’s treachery.
People who don’t believe in voting rights shouldn’t get a vote…
I mean, this is GREAT and all, but Nancy doesn’t get a vote. Until you can convince Manchin and Sinema I think we are dead in the water on killing the filibuster.
Pelosi doesn’t get a vote on this Manchin and Sinema do.
Manchin might vote for a carve out but it should be obvious by now that Sinema won’t. She is an obstructionist to the core.
Not defending the filibuster here. But consider that as the senate is currently arranged, with the possibility of 41 senators potentially representing 70% or more of the people, the filibuster can equally be used to block extremist legislation by the minority.
The filibuster is an undemocratic practice in an undemocratic institution, California gets two votes, Wyoming gets two votes. Ds represent 41M more Americans than rethugs.
The filibuster doesn’t need to be reformed the Senate needs to be reformed.
“openness?”
New one on me.
When the repubs held the Senate under dumpster they didn’t do anything that COULD be filibustered.
Tax breaks? Reconciliation.
Judges? Already a carve out from the filibuster.
What ELSE did they actually do?
And if they gain control of the Senate again, McConnell with 86 the filibuster faster than you can say his cursed name.
For what? They have no agenda. What would they even want to pass?
I have been waiting for this signal — full speed ahead.
Yeah, this would be great and all, but it’s a complete fantasy at this point. The only way this comes about is if we somehow hold the House and pick up a couple of seats in the Senate to offset Manema. (Because ending the filibuster for anything in the Senate is meaningless for the ultimate fate of legislation if we don’t have the House as well.) Right now that looks like a daunting, almost impossible task, but that’s what we should be focusing on. I’ve given up on Manema coming around to anything in terms of a filibuster carveout… maybe for raising the debt ceiling, since a default would hurt their wealthy friends and donors. And Manchin looks either pathetic and delusional or just plain stupid when it comes to his insistence that ten Republicans would support any kind of protection of voting rights.
Finally, even if we did manage to pass some sort of national voting rights legislation, IMO the Supreme Court Gang of Six would strike it down. That’s something else we’d need to do with an increased Democratic majority—expand the Court, to make up for McConnell’s hijinks of the past few years. But hey, maybe lions will start lying down with lambs, Hades will experience a hundred-millenniums ice storm, etc, etc.
Just like they insist on blue slips for judges when the Dems are in control and toss them as soon as they (Repubs) are in control. Moscow Mitch and his merry band of crooks will do anything that advances their agenda and obstruct anything that doesn’t.
Just out of curiosity … when George W. Bush wanted to end the filibuster in 2005 to get Miguel Estrada - whom he badly wanted to be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court - confirmed to the D.C. court of appeals, how many of you opposed the filibuster back then? By the way … this was the first time a filibuster had ever been used to block a judicial nominee with majority support AND the first time a court of appeals nominee had been filibustered. Incidentally, Barack Obama was a vociferous supporter of “the racist filibuster” back then as was the New York Times and every other “mainstream outlet.”
Also, when Donald Trump wanted the filibuster removed to build his border wall, how many of you opposed the filibuster then?
Trump wanted to do away with the filibuster during his term. Mitch McConnell opposed it, as did the entire Senate Democratic caucus by the way. A few progressive opinion writers floated think pieces on how maybe Democrats should take Trump up on his offer in order to give Trump his border wall now - as it wouldn’t work anyway and could easily be dismantled - in favor of getting rid of the filibuster to pass transformative progressive legislation in the future. Kind of wish you had listened to those guys back then eh?
So that they can keep Democrats from interfering with the agenda you say they don’t have----the agenda that would make the country regress about 75 years.
Seems that you are advocating violating the rule of law to preserve the rule of law.
That’s very Trumpy “thinking.”
If you haven’t noticed, they are using the courts to that end. Not legislation.
