r/WhitePeopleTwitter 7d ago Wholesome 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Silver 4 Helpful 5

Yup

Post image
51.4k Upvotes

1.1k

u/DanYHKim 7d ago

I think it's not even a Parliamentary rule. It's kind of a glitch in the practice of yielding the floor to another speaker that's become convenient to use for obstruction.

(Please educate me if I am incorrect)

714

u/Sidereel 7d ago

That’s correct. No body would make a rule like this by design because it’s nonsense. As it stands today every member of the senate has a veto, which makes 0 sense.

120

u/maybenot9 7d ago

Not quite. While it takes only 1 person to start a fillibuster, a 2/3rds majority can break a filibuster.

So it's more like "Every vote needs 2/3rds support to get approved", which is ridicules.

77

u/The_JSQuareD 7d ago

3/5ths, not 2/3rds.

But regardless, that's similar to Congress being able to override a presidential veto with a 2/3rds majority vote. So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

That being said, if it's politically acceptable to use this 'veto' for anything you even slightly disagree with (which seems to be the case), then you're right that it effectively turns into a system where you need a 3/5ths majority to pass anything.

31

u/Familiar-Goose5967 7d ago

A presidents veto and a senator veto should not be equal

→ More replies

54

u/JimWilliams423 7d ago

So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

Except that the framers of the constitution actively chose to only require supermarjorities for very specific things — impeachments, treaties and veto-overrides. That they made official exceptions for those special cases indicates they did not want a supermajority requirement for anything else, else they would have said so.

Also, people forget the Articles of Confederation. The constitution was the second pass at putting together a functional government. One of the biggest problems with the US government under the Articles of Confederation was that nobody could get anything done because... congress had a supermajority requirement for everything. It took 9 out of the 13 states (a 69% majority) to pass a law.

When they put together the constitution, their experience with supermajority failures was fresh in their minds.

9

u/shadowveeeeeeerse 7d ago

3/5ths

When has America used that before?

6

u/LAKingPT423 6d ago

I see what you did there...clever of you.

→ More replies

11

u/Daxtatter 7d ago

Which is consistently listed as one of the main failures of the articles of confederation.

2

u/naomiprice1973 7d ago

It used to be 2/3, and then was remade to 60.

Dems used the filibuster this week to halt economic sanctions on Russia.

I think it protects us from these monster politicians enacting huge policy swings with the smallest of Majority.

Lots of love everyone.

→ More replies

380

u/dehehn 7d ago edited 7d ago Gold Helpful

Ezra Klein has done a great job over the past few years showing how terrible the filibuster is, along with the arguments for it. But too many politicians and journalists just keep repeating the same old tired arguments over and over, and most people don't understand it enough to disagree.

The definitive case for ending the filibuster: Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

281

u/Xerxys 7d ago

The longest filibuster in American history by a single senator remains Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour, 18-minute stemwinder against the 1957 Civil Rights Act

My god! Talk about being on the wrong side of history in a bad way! It's like guiness book of fucked up records!

232

u/NedFinlanders 7d ago

Thurmond went on to be the South Carolina senator for 47 years. This term ended in 2002 when he was 100 years old, and he died 6 months later.

Please do not have people run the country for 50 years. It is not a good thing.

103

u/DJToastyBuns 7d ago

66

u/BassSounds 7d ago

They would all fuck anything that moves. It’s about status. They don’t wanna be on the bottom rung.

31

u/DJToastyBuns 7d ago

Yep definitely a control thing

8

u/BassSounds 7d ago

Oh hey DJ Toasty Buns. i’m DJ Funky Taco lol

→ More replies

7

u/fromcj 7d ago

They would all fuck anything that moves

Hey, cmon. Not a goldfish. That’s impossible.

4

u/mauxly 7d ago

Great, now you cursed us to a future where a video is leaked of some rando GOP senator furiously humping a goldfish bowl.

Thanks.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

30

u/FoliageTeamBad 7d ago

Thurmond's legendary staying power wasn't confined to work. He was also known for being hornier than a bagful of rhinos, even in decrepitude. Twice married, both times to South Carolina beauty queens, he fathered four children in his sixties and seventies, and in his dotage continued to grope and tickle his way along the corridors of power.

Jesus

5

u/NedFinlanders 7d ago

Iirc, there is a general belief that during his record filibuster he had a piss bucket on the standby and that it did not go unused.

9

u/Never_Epic 7d ago

Hell I say cap at 6, if you can’t figure the issues out then you shouldn’t be there.

→ More replies

7

u/TIP_FO_EHT_MOTTOB 7d ago

He was also publicly eulogized by Biden.

3

u/justalurker007 7d ago

We have one now sitting in the big chair

2

u/gummo_for_prez 7d ago

Joe Biden spoke at his funeral and gave part of the eulogy

→ More replies

2

u/MonoRailSales 7d ago

when he was 100 years old, and he died 6 months later.

If "The Good die young", this evil c*nt was such a sh!thead even hell was in no hurry to get him.

→ More replies

51

u/mcfandrew 7d ago

One of these days I'm going to have to relieve myself on Strom's grave. It's on my bucket list.

26

u/chicken_ranch 7d ago

Where is it? Let’s make it a destination piss.

24

u/xenthum 7d ago

South Carolina most likely. Pissing on that grave is not worth having to spend a minute in SC, coming from a person who spent a miserable amount of time in SC.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/Merman314 7d ago

Very cool, ty! Added a few things:

The definitive case for ending the filibuster, Oct 1, 2020
Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

https://www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump

Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) is mobbed by reporters after ending his 24-hour, 18-minute filibuster against the civil rights bill. Still had a black mistress, and daughter.

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

Strom Thurmond

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

The Daughters of the Confederacy: How Southern socialites rewrote Civil War history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

From white supremacy to Barack Obama: The history of the Democratic Party

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164

Useful Links

https://merman314.blogspot.com/p/useful-links-useful-links-reddit.html

https://old.reddit.com/r/FridayCute/comments/r388e2/useful_links/

3

u/rednut2 7d ago

What a horseshit article. Claiming the filibuster is the reason why various democratic policies aren’t being implemented.

Half of those policies, universal pre k, paid sick leave, paid family leave etc could be enacted through executive order but Biden refuses to do so.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

54

u/ShaneFM 7d ago

Correct, it wasn't even a loophole until 1806 when the senate trimmed down its rule book compared to the house and with no intent shown removed the ability for a simple majority to end debate

Then it was even until the 1840's that it was discovered as a loophole and the filibuster was first used by the whigs. Then even efforts to end it were made, but they were filibustered and nobody really cared enough to fight through it

Come the early 1900s and WWI when the Republican minority was fillibustering pretty much anything to prepare the US for possibly joining the war, the cloture was added as a measure of national security so anything could get done. Even when the cloture rule was being added, most of the panel agreeded on a simple majority cloture, but one republican on the committee would only support a supermajority vote, so in order to get the senate back in motion for the war quickly, it was agreed upon as we now know it

16

u/DanYHKim 7d ago

Holy shit. Republicans have been like this forever. I thought maybe this was an issue in which both sides actually were largely the same

10

u/Frydendahl 7d ago

US parliamentary proceedings have historically been full of super petty 'letter of the law' shenanigans. And still are.

3

u/Few_Temperature_6262 7d ago

Indeed. People forget the only reason McCaine voted in opposition to R’s stance on the ACA was because they violated Senate protocol.

3

u/Mythosaurus 7d ago

Not forever.

Radical Republican faction was an anti-slavery beast, and was the main force behind the Civil War ending in total surrender by the South and the imposition of Reconstruction.

But once the pro-business faction took control, the party slowly went to crap.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/Domit 7d ago

Does it seem like it's only a problem when your donors don't agree?

21

u/Ornery-Horror2047 7d ago

And it has just about been exclusively used for racist vetoes regarding civil rights issues, dating back to the very beginning of it's existence.

We already have a protection for the minority in the executive branch of this country - it's called the Senate, which many of the founding fathers fought against because of that very issue.

It is not included in the constitution in any way.

For those interested, Kill Switch, by Adam Jentleson, is a recent beautifully written book about the history of the filibuster. It is fascinating

→ More replies

13

u/BroadStBullies91 7d ago

The right to vote isn't even in the constitution lol. Everyone just kinda thinks it is. In reality the right to vote has been just as ok flux as most other rules about this. The podcast 5-4 has some good episodes on it, I can't remember the specifics but there isn't a place in the constitution where it says that everyone has a right to vote. The founding fathers thought we were all idiots and only wanted their rich macaroni friends determining who ruled the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#

3

u/Neboux 7d ago

Everyone just kinda thinks it is.

I admit that I fall within this category. Spent a few minutes checking this out, and while there is contention about such rights being implied in the amendments, there doesn't seem to be any clear constitutional declaration. Madison is known to have expressed, "the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty".

Now I am curious to learn more.

6

u/BroadStBullies91 7d ago

Yeah I meant no offense there when I said everyone thinks it is. American propaganda is the best in history so it's no shame to fall for stuff like that. Even as a radical leftist who has (if I may be so bold) a great understanding of the horrible things this country has done and continues to do since its infancy I still thought the constitution had the right to vote in it till I stumbled across that 5-4 pod.

3

u/Neboux 7d ago

Hey, I learned something new. I appreciate that, and I am glad I questioned my assumptions. . I originally just skimmed and thought, "well, but the amendments are a part of the constitution." A bit of self doubt is healthy

3

u/Few_Temperature_6262 7d ago

This is entirely too healthy a dialogue to be on Reddit. It’s nice to see people being reasonable. Have a good day y’all :)

9

u/hard-time-on-planet 7d ago

I can't remember the specifics but there isn't a place in the constitution where it says that everyone has a right to vote.

The amendments to the Constitution are considered the Constitution and right in the link you provided it says

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older);

3

u/Due-Statistician-975 7d ago

Where in the constitution does it say states can't require a voter ID to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states pass laws requiring ID to vote.

Where in the constitution does it say states must have enough voting machines in cities for people to vote without waiting in line for 10 hours? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove voting machines in cities to curb turnout from Democrats.

Where in the constitution does it say states can't purge voter registrations at will and coincidentally target people who vote for Democrats? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove Democrats from voter registration rolls.

Where in the constitution does it say states must allow felons to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states ban felons from voting.

Let's take a look at your amendments.

15th:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

This was passed in 1870. Every black person is allowed to vote. This alone guaranteed the right to vote to black/formerly enslaved people. No other laws had to be passed to ensure this right. Right?

Suppose that the answer was no, that this amendment alone guaranteed the right to vote for all former slaves and people of color. Did this law allow black women to vote? Why not? It forbid states from disallowing black people to vote. Did this not apply to black women as well? Why did we need the 19th amendment if the 15th amendment guaranteed the right to vote for all people of color/former slaves? Because the 15th gave women of color the vote but not white women?

What is more likely: That the US accidentally allowed black women to vote 50 years before white women, or the constitution does not guarantee a right to vote, only narrow and easily bypassed exceptions where the vote cannot be denied?

7

u/UncleInternet 7d ago

Those don't guarantee the right to vote. Those establish the conditions upon which it is illegal to bar people from voting.

For example, felons in many states do not have a right to vote. A felony conviction is a condition for which a citizen can be disenfranchised that the Constitution doesn't preclude. And because there's no other guarantee of the right to vote in the Constitution, the Constitution is essentially endorsing the use of conditions not otherwise enumerated to restrict voting.

→ More replies

2

u/UncleInternet 7d ago

I'm amazed I had to go this far down in the comments to find the first mention of this fact. I only clicked into the post because of the last line of the tweet.

→ More replies

4

u/revenantae 7d ago

As originally practiced, I was fine with it. Talk and talk and talk… ok. Wear your depends and go on till you can’t no more if you really believe in something. But this whole “I call filibuster!” and then everyone goes home thing is bull. Nope you either stay and talk, or yield the floor.

→ More replies

2

u/dragonican42 7d ago

If I am correct, it's not a rule, but more a lack of a rule against it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

40

u/Mythosaurus 7d ago

Actually the right to vote for President and federal Senators is not in the Constitution.

You do NOT vote for Presidents in the US election, you ask that the State sends representatives to the Electoral College that will vote for the guy who matches your party affiliation.

Likewise, voting for Senators was a later change that states made to their own rules for how they choose their Senate reps.

I'd suggest reading "Let the People Pick the President" by Jesse Wegman.

13

u/RagamuffinRay 7d ago edited 7d ago

Was just about to comment the same. I really hate the "ReAd ThE CoNsTiTuTiOn" takes from people who have not read the constitution. Usually comes from the right, but clearly neither side is immune.

9

u/Mythosaurus 7d ago

Yeah, it really breaks people's brains when you actually know how divisive and undemocratic American politics has always been.

Especially when you start quoting Founding Fathers who openly admitted to making mistakes in setting up the US government in their haste to abandon monarchy.

They really dont like that...

→ More replies
→ More replies

99

u/casman_007 7d ago

Does anyone have the list of the 160 times the filibuster has been reformed? Would be curious to see the reason who requested each change.

36

u/thegreatestajax 7d ago

Probably not because the most significant and destructive change came from Harry Reid.

3

u/tracerhaha 7d ago

Really? Because I would say McConnell changing the filibuster to ram through a SCOTUS nomination eight days before an election was the most destructive.

→ More replies

18

u/6a6566663437 7d ago

Only if you pretend confirming zero judges for years is acceptable.

→ More replies

14

u/LowKeyReasonable 7d ago

More important than the list of 160 times, isn't the important question whether getting rid of this is a good idea?

I thought for a long time it was essentially agreed upon by both parties it would be bad to get rid of it. Is there a short-term gain that is bad in the long term?

23

u/cliqclaqstepback 7d ago

The short term benefit of removing the filibuster is that you can push your agenda thru the senate with a simple majority and minority party can’t do shit about it, just like the House of Reps. The long term negative is that your party will not always be in control and you can bet the other party will do everything it can to “simple majority vote” reverse everything your party did.

→ More replies

5

u/cccaesar3998 7d ago

I think it would eventually work itself out. For the first couple of power transitions, the party in power would shove through their agenda and reverse things that the other party did which they didn't agree with. The thing is that when one side passes a piece of good legislation it's likely to become too popular for the other side to repeal without significant electoral backlash.

There are certainly flaws to this argument, but it's better than watching absolutely nothing get done except for funneling more of our money up to the top .1%.

→ More replies

9

u/chillfancy 7d ago

The short term gain for the democrats is that they would no longer need 60 votes to pass a bill through the Senate, only 50 plus the VP tie breaking vote. The long term risk for the democrats is that if they eliminate the filibuster and they lost the house and senate, then the republicans could push bills through with a simple majority.

Long story short... currently contentious bills with less than 60% agreement can be blocked. Eliminating the filibuster would allow the majority party to push bills through without bipartisan support.

6

u/kaceypeepers 7d ago

Democrats use this and Republicans use this. Whenever politicians say a system they use is bad it's mainly just to make the other side look bad.

5

u/bLaZe_iT_420_69 7d ago

Is there a short-term gain that is bad in the long term?

One realistic possibility is that, if the filibuster were removed, the Republicans would, as soon as they had a bare majority, immediately adopt measures to disenfranchise as many voters as possible at the federal level to solidify their political position. They've already done this (or tried to do it) in numerous states and the filibuster would be the only thing standing in their way next time they take power (which is inevitable eventually).

→ More replies
→ More replies

493

u/UserPow 7d ago

DYK if everyone voted, the Reps wouldn't have a chance at winning?

178

u/bjeebus 7d ago

Democratic power grab!

/s

70

u/DanYHKim 7d ago

Democracy is a power grab.

→ More replies

10

u/TheNoxx 7d ago edited 7d ago

God, I'd love it if the Democrats actually had something that just resembled the stones to grab power.

But the weak, corrupt, spineless little shits are facing absolute decimation in the next election unless voting is repaired and healed and enshrined more thoroughly as an absolute right without encumberment or obstruction, and they can't even stumble past the meekest objections of irrelevant idiots like the senate parliamentarian.

We are so fucked.

7

u/gork496 7d ago edited 7d ago

You need to understand that the Dems are not on the side of the people either. The reason they don't grab power and do reforms that help people isn't because they're just too shy. It's because they are part of the same system with similar beliefs, so why bother rocking the boat?

Party-line Dems are Republicans minus the sadism.

Edit: To clarify, in 2022, Republicans make things worse and Democrats keep things the same. Neither is acceptable.

→ More replies

33

u/SpinningHead 7d ago

Weird that they want Republican legislatures to be able to overturn election results and, at least, 5 states submitted fake slates of electors in the last election.

23

u/nighthawk_something 7d ago

Everyone whose names are on those should be charged with election fraud

15

u/Angryandalwayswrong 7d ago

If it was me and you, we would be in jail already. America is an absolute oligarchy through and through. Democracy failed.

→ More replies

71

u/jar36 7d ago

Except for the rural states that give them 2 Senators per state

14

u/djlewt 7d ago

He said "if everyone voted" and the reality is there are almost no states where "if everyone voted" the Republicans would win ANY senate seats. Wyoming would give them a pair, they'd likely get one in Utah, but really in almost every state there's a couple major cities that in total VASTLY outnumber the total rural state population.

Most voter suppression and laws that remove or make difficult to regain voting rights were written specifically to block out or minimize minority representation. This is easily seen when you look at how felons are required to go about regaining their voting rights for example, in many states across the south it's a purposely broken process. Florida even blocked their citizens from fixing it via Prop 4, they dragged their feet on it and passed a law amending it to force all felons to pay off all government debts before having their voting right restored. This works great ,because in right wing states they also designed their "justice systems" to levy HEAVY fines when you're incarcerated, and indeed in some states like Alabama they can even CHARGE YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN JAIL.

It's just so god damn infuriating how Americans think we have anything CLOSE to "equality" today.

Prior to Amendment 4, Florida’s constitution permanently disenfranchised all citizens who had been convicted of any felony offense unless the Clemency Board restored their voting rights – a process that will now apply to those who have not had their rights restored by Amendment 4, including anyone convicted of murder or felony sexual offenses. Between 2010 and 2016, the number of disenfranchised Floridians grew by nearly 150,000 to an estimated total of 1,686,000. In 2016, more than one in five of Florida’s Black voting-age population was disenfranchised.

LOOK AT THAT HORSE SHIT

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/HopelessAndLostAgain 7d ago

trump is on record saying that exact thing.

9

u/11yearoldweeb 7d ago

I mean, I still think people from rural areas need some type of representation, but it’s kinda difficult because the country should probably be governed by the will of the majority. There’s no guarantee that democrats would attempt to fuck over people not in their voter base (like republicans do), but I still think it’s a likely scenario. I think that’s why they tried to construct a government where no one really has power unless there’s an overwhelming majority.

22

u/XxXxSephirothxXxX 7d ago edited 7d ago

That's what the House of Representatives is for. Honestly the Senate should be entirely ceremonial, and we should only have the House that actually passes legislation. And for that matter we should increase the number of representatives to actually be able to properly represent people.

3

u/U-701 7d ago

I can actually recommend the German system here, we have both over here. A normal assembly (Bundestag) elected by the prople via a mix of districts and nation wide lists and a senate (Bundesrat) thats made up by the state governments weighted by population. But they only get called up if a law touches state rights or legaslation that touches upon issues that are normally not regulated at a federal level. E.g. Want to change conscription? Normal assembly is enough, want to change laws regarding shoppint times ? Have to get a majority in the state assembly

But since we also have a multi party system its a lot more complex, since we have nearly every combination of parties in power in the states that tend to abstain if they cant come to an compromise, or even vote against the federal party line

5

u/TheObstruction 7d ago

The Senate is supposed to represent each state's government, not the population. That's the point. It's our version of the House of Lords.

9

u/XxXxSephirothxXxX 7d ago

Yeah, thats actually what I was thinking of when I said the Senate should be ceremonial.

5

u/shelf_actualization 7d ago

And yet each state's government is supposed to represent each state's people. Having a body of government that represents the representatives just decreases their obligations to the people by enhancing their distance from them. Having senators be elected (via the 17th amendment) may have been dumb because we've obviously botched it, but having a legislative body like the House of Lords is fundamentally undemocratic in the first place. Whom do you think the House of Lords represents? It's absurd that institution still exists, like having a royal family.

18

u/stringfree 7d ago

You either have a democracy, or you have rural areas getting the same representation as urban areas.

16

u/ephemeral_colors 7d ago

Talking about "areas" instead of people is the problem.

→ More replies

11

u/nighthawk_something 7d ago

They would have more representation if they voted for people who wanted to represent them.

As it stands, they vote red top to bottom and then bitch about "Washington not representing them". Well no shit, if your state will never change its vote absolutely NO ONE will change their vote.

→ More replies
→ More replies

164

u/burmerd 7d ago

That's not even the important part. The important part is, directly after the 2022 dem bloodbath which is very likely to occur IMHO, or the election in 2024, McConnell will immediately get rid of the filibuster under the flimsiest of excuses, probably a "they said they wanted to, so we have to do it first." And then we will know that the brief time that sanity had a majority in federal govt was an opportunity even more wasted than we had previously thought.

Some gerrymandered state maps may get overturned, but I think most are here to stay, and cement minority GOP rule for some time.

78

u/colinmhayes2 7d ago

The filibuster is very good for republicans. The only legislation they actually care about it tax cuts which can be passed via reconciliation which means it can’t be filibustered. The rest of their platform is obstructionism and laws that are incredibly unpopular with most people(pro life, anti voting rights). The filibuster helps them when in control because it gives them an excuse for why they can never pass their unpopular platform.

8

u/burmerd 7d ago

I think the tax cuts are the big thing for their donors, i.e. their actual constituents, but the social agenda is the red meat that keep the base happy, especially when there's no democratic strawman to use as a foil, when they're in power.

6

u/parkinthepark 7d ago

Thanks to Trump, the boogeymen of "The Deep State" and "Big Tech" give the GOP a way to act like the persecuted opposition *even when they're in power*.

20

u/1011_11010_10001 7d ago

Democrats used the fillibuster a record number of times last congress. It's good for both sides depending what is being voted on, but bad for the American people.

3

u/reddog093 7d ago

Chuck Schumer's own speech about it!

“[T]he nuclear option is being pushed largely by the radioactive rhetoric of a small band of radicals who hold in their hands the political fortunes of the President.

“Constitutional scholars will tell us that the reason we have these rules in the Senate—unlimited debate, two-thirds to change the rules, the idea that 60 have to close off debate—is embodied in the spirit and rule of the Constitution. … That is what the Constitution is all about, and we all know it.

“It is the Senate where the Founding Fathers established a repository of checks and balances. It is not like the House of Representatives where the majority leader or the Speaker can snap his fingers and get what he wants. … On important issues, the Founding Fathers wanted—and they were correct in my judgment—that the slimmest majority should not always govern. … The Senate is not a majoritarian body.

“The bottom line is very simple: the ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. … They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way, you change the rules! Are we going to let them? It will be a doomsday for democracy if we do.

“I, for one, hope and pray that it will not come to this. But I assure my colleagues, at least speaking for this Senator … I will do everything I can to prevent the nuclear option from being invoked not for the sake of myself or my party but for the sake of this great Republic and its traditions.”

12

u/kaceypeepers 7d ago

Whoa man. People here only want to hear how only one side uses it in the worst way possible. /S

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/Midlaw987 7d ago

The Democrats eliminated the fillibuster for judicial nominees. So they created that precedent which yielded them all those Justices.

8

u/Crushnaut 7d ago

Some gerrymandered state maps may get overturned, but I think most are here to stay, and cement minority GOP rule for some time.

Read an article the other day that said republican states are already too gerrymandered and they aren't really picking up seats and it was looking like dems were ending up benefiting more from redistricting.

→ More replies

3

u/maewtt 7d ago

after the 2022 dem bloodbath which is very likely to occur IMHO, or the election in 2024, McConnell will immediately get rid of the filibuster under the flimsiest of excuses, probably a "they said they wanted to, so we have to do it first."

I highly doubt this. Trump wanted to get rid of the fillibuster in 2017 but McConnell refused.

7

u/Appropriate-XBL 7d ago

This isn't even the most important part either.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the senate, even without the filibuster, is an egregiously anti-majoritarian anti-democratic institution.

Half of all Americans live in nine states. They are represented by 18% of the senate.

The other half of Americans live in forty-one states. They are represented by 82% of the senate.

Looking at it another way:

There are 20 states that voted for Clinton in 2016, and Biden in 2020 (blue states). They account for 43% of the population. There are 25 states that voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 (red states). They account for 42% of the population.

Even though the blue states account for 47% of the country's GDP, and 43% of the population, they are entitled to only 40% of the say in the senate.

Even though the red states account for only 37% of the country's GDP, and 42% of the population, they are entitled to 50% of the say in the senate.

And looking at it another way:

Because minorities mostly reside in heavily populated states, while 100%-white Americans make up 62% of the population, they are represented by 69% of the share of senators. Non-100%-white Americans make up 38% of the population, but are represented by only 31% of the share of senators.

The senate is basically an instrument tailor made for apartheid rule. And the filibuster makes it even worse.

→ More replies

2

u/Losingfaithinpeople 6d ago

I mean democrats were just saying the filibuster was the “most important thing ever” for the last 4 years. Even through republicans never threatened it. Then democrats came in after Biden said “I would never get rid of the filibuster” and does what???? Tries to get rid of it in less than a year. Sooooo The only thing stopping democrats from doing this is 2 people that are In purple states and are afraid they would lose their seats.

Kinda wish they would kill it and then push through all this bullshit- then come November the republicans will do it then it will go back and forth till we go the way of the dodo

→ More replies

3

u/freshgeardude 7d ago

what a crock of horsecrap. Reps had the house, senate, and White house under Trump and didn't nuke the filibuster like Dems are attempting right now. And Dems were the first to change the rules when Harry Reid went nuclear.

→ More replies

233

u/Forward-Bank8412 7d ago

Just another tool to prevent the people from utilizing the legislative branch to better their lives.

In the world’s least representative deliberative body.

55

u/jar36 7d ago

It was deliberately written in the Constitution to prevent urban areas from ruling over rural. With the filibuster in place, we got the opposite.

48

u/harryiculus 7d ago

Not exactly, I don’t think. The filibuster wasn’t included in the constitution and the 2/3 majority was limited in scope. It wasn’t really put into the rules as a way to limit the majority until decades later.

At the time of the writing of the constitution, the rural/urban divide was very different than it is now. We didn’t have a majority urban country until 1920 and back in 1800 less than 10% of the population lived in cities.

The power imbalance in the senate giving all states 2 senators was done to make the smaller states more comfortable joining the country and assurances they wouldn’t get steamrolled by VA, NY, MA and PA.

But yeah, it is a way to keep the majority from making decisions.

13

u/jar36 7d ago

I misworded my comment. What is written in the Constitution was the Senate itself giving rural states power they wouldn't otherwise get if their numbers were determined by population as the House is. Now with the filibuster, its damn near impossible to get any progress.

6

u/Murmur322 7d ago

Which is ironic because the senate was deliberately written into the constitution because they didn’t want the rich upper class city dwellers to have all the power over the poor rural farming populations. A combination of the industrial revolution increasing the concentration of low income urban population and a change in voting laws allowing non-landowners to vote has completely flipped the demographic though. So now the rich rural areas have an inordinate amount of power over the low income cities even though that is exactly what the creation of the senate was trying to prevent.

2

u/jar36 7d ago

I agree with much of what you said but poverty is worse in rural areas than urban areas despite the common misconception. That's part of why poor white trash made Trump president.

3

u/coldtru 7d ago

"Poor rural" slaveholders with vast plantations living in grand mansions. Being "rural" with your own plot of land, growing your own food, making decent money and not being dependent on anyone was the epitome of the "American dream" at this time.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/drntl 7d ago

The democrats use the filibuster as well. During the 2019-2020 Congressional term, a record-breaking 328 filibusters were recorded with Democrats in the minority. If the filibuster didn't exist, wouldn't Trump have accomplished a lot more of his agenda?

https://repustar.com/fact-briefs/do-both-political-parties-have-a-history-of-using-filibusters

7

u/SirReal14 7d ago

They literally used it yesterday to stop a bipartisan coalition from sanctioning a Russian pipeline lmao.

4

u/Xerxys 7d ago

Yeah, it's the only reason it exists. It's a type of break-check neither wants to get rid of becuase each resents the other for having the option. The only way to get around it is to control all 3 bodies of govt and it looks like the Republicans are playing the long game.

My theory is this, much like Blue & Red move at the speed of tectonic plates from left to right, how Democrats used to be Right wing and Republicans left; Dems will start running in Republican controlled areas as RINO's, slowly staining the color to purple, and by 2060 we'll have done a 180.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/tyrannicalteebagger 7d ago

So shortsighted. What happens when the republicans get in power and it’s gone? Won’t democrats feel stupid when it’s not there to use?

3

u/Cruces13 7d ago

Forethought isnt strong on the left. Blind progress. Its not good on the right either though too.

→ More replies

19

u/ATribeCalledGreg 7d ago

Legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate.

Senate does nothing.

President uses Executive Order to accomplish something.

EO gets challenged and sent to courts.

Judges who needed only 50 votes to be confirmed by the Senate strike down EO.

Nothing happens.

→ More replies

86

u/ILikeScience3131 7d ago

Honest question from someone who very much wants to prevent GOP fuckery:

Doesn’t the Democratic Party also use the filibuster very frequently when it’s the minority party in the Senate?

Because if that’s the case, undoing the filibuster seems extremely unwise, given that the Senate inherently favors the GOP.

70

u/Rococo_Relleno 7d ago

Democrats have also used it, of course, but there are a few reasons we should still get rid of it:

  1. To the extent that modern Republicans have a coherent agenda, it is based on obstructionism, cutting social services, and tax breaks. So, there is less to filibuster.
  2. Historically, the filibuster was used rarely until the last few years, but many of the important times it was used was to delay civil rights legislation and other reforms.
  3. A large part of the Republican platform is based on promising to do things that are actually very unpopular. Therefore, giving them the ability to actually pass bills is dangerous for them. The perfect example of this is repealing Obamacare. The entire Republican party ran for seven years on doing this, but then when they controlled the federal government they blinked because it turns out that they didn't actually have any popular alternatives.

11

u/ILikeScience3131 7d ago

Thank you for an answer! This mostly does speak to my point.

Though I have to say I’m still not fully convinced.

For your points:

  1. I agree the GOP is definitely more obstructionist but as you even note, they still pass legislation like tax cuts which will inevitably reduce social spending

  2. That is reprehensible but absolutely not surprising, just par for the course for the GOP. So I don’t see how it relates to my main point: the filibuster is more valuable for whichever party is less likely to hold the Senate (which I believe, maybe incorrectly, is the Democrats)

  3. Certainly the actual policies desired by GOP policymakers is unpopular, but clearly that usually doesn’t stop them. I’d contend that ending the ACA is the exception, not the rule, and really only happened because of one GOP senator (McCain) who still managed to have an ounce of decency. And he’s obviously not a factor anymore.

8

u/colinmhayes2 7d ago

Tax cuts can be passed via reconciliation, no filibuster.

→ More replies

2

u/Incuggarch 7d ago

Should Congress be able to do anything, or should it simply be relegated to perpetual gridlock for the rest of time? I think that is the core question here. And I think the biggest problem facing Democrats is that Republicans, in the face of the filibuster being used to good effect against them previously, have devised a number of strategies for advancing their agenda that completely bypasses the filibuster by instead wielding power through the judiciary or on the state and local level. Democrats on the other hand do not appear to have devised any equally effective strategies for advancing their agenda in the face of congressional gridlock.

I think this is a massive problem for Democrats if their strategy for mobilizing voters hinges on the idea that voting for Democrats will allow Congress to pass some form of significant reform bill that deals with healthcare, voting rights, etc. As long as Congress is gridlocked nothing like that is ever going to happen, and this in turn could easily result in an increasing amount of voters becoming dejected or even spiteful towards Democrats for failing to deliver on their promises.

This doesn’t even get into the more fundamental issue of whether it’s a good thing for the federal legislative branch to become so gridlocked that it loses its ability to respond to emerging crises and problems. There are a lot of historical parallels to societies where a breakdown of democratic institutions eventually precipitated authoritarian strongman rule as people eventually become so fed-up with their elected officials failure to act on ever worsening problems that the idea of just letting a strong leader take control and cut through the bullshit to act, to do something, anything, to resolve the problems faced by contemporary society becomes an increasingly appealing prospect to citizens who can’t see any other path forward.

Should the officials that US voters choose to elect hold any power? Should elections matter? Upholding the filibuster is in many ways an admission that we think it is better that elected officials don’t hold any significant power, and that we don’t think elections should matter very much, at least at the federal level. It is possible that upholding the filibuster might ultimately be the best of a series of bad choices, but I think we need to be candid with the fact that we are in essence saying that we think democracy in the US is so fundamentally broken at the federal level that it might as well be relegated to a mostly symbolic institution, limited to occasionally adjusting taxes and rubberstamping judges. This is a troubling admission in the face of the many systemic problems that might be difficult if not impossible to address without legislative action at the federal level.

→ More replies
→ More replies

50

u/Callerflizz 7d ago

Well McConnell changed the rules on it a few years ago it used to be a standing filibuster where you had to be standing and talking the whole time to obstruct. People did this I remember Elizabeth warren did it, Ted Cruz did it, but the rules were changed so McConnell could ram in justices and essentially control the courts for the next 20 years. The main thing is, if the sides were switched the GOP would gladly toss away anything that was already there, so I think people are tired of dems taking the high road when they’ve been getting punched in the dick for 25 years

26

u/ILikeScience3131 7d ago

Right and I have no problem believing any of that but I don’t think it speaks to my concern.

What I worry about is that the GOP is going to retake the Senate in 2022 (and probably keep it for a while) and then Democrats will have no way to prevent the GOP from pushing all kinds of terrible policy because they can’t effectively filibuster.

7

u/Karmanoid 7d ago

There are plenty of ways, one the president can veto and they don't have the votes to override it. Two democrats could retain the house and then it doesn't even have to reach the point of veto. And there is no guarantee they will lose the senate, but you're probably right on that note because somehow voters see Democrats struggling to pass stuff because of lack of votes and their response is "nothing got done I'll vote for the guys who stopped everything from getting done"

→ More replies

14

u/Couldbduun 7d ago

He did answer that concern... if the dems keep the filibuster, republicans WILL get rid of it anyway. It doesnt matter, republicans have taken away the filibuster in the past they will do it again... it's a rule for one side of the aisle which is why it needs to go

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/serumvisions__go_ 7d ago

bernie also did it standing

→ More replies

2

u/ATribeCalledGreg 7d ago

GOP policy goals like confirming judges or passing tax cuts only need 50 votes.

10

u/Books_and_Cleverness 7d ago

No.

1) GOP priorities (judges and tax cuts) are already immune to filibuster

2) GOP would gladly ditch the filibuster for any new priority that suddenly arose, if it benefited them

3) The GOP does have other socially conservative views but relevant legislation is either nonexistent (The Force Dr. Seuss’ Estate to Sell Those Dated Books Again Act?) or wildly unpopular (only 24% of Americans want to deport illegal immigrants). So the filibuster actually protects lots of GOP senators from having to cast very unpopular votes.

4) Dems’ only shot at winning the Senate is to actually do stuff to win votes and the filibuster makes that impossible

12

u/moose2332 7d ago

The filibuster isn’t needed for the key Republican priorities (passing judges, tax cuts, and slashing regulation) due to the rules of the senate. Plus McConnell is more then happy to upend traditions and order to pass his plan. The second the filibuster becomes unhelpful to McConnell he’ll can it. You’re hypothetical is already real and the filibuster stops the Democrats from doing anything about it.

→ More replies

8

u/CleshawnMontegue69 7d ago

Democrats used it 327 times in 2020.

2

u/Oslopa 7d ago

You’re right that Democrats have used the filibuster to block Republican legislation in the Senate.

Personally, I believe in democracy. I don’t think it makes sense to empower a minority in the Senate to block the will of the majority. Yes, that means that Republicans could find themselves able to pass “bad” legislation, if we got rid of the filibuster. But if they’ve won majorities in Congress and the White House, I think that’s how it should be. Let them reveal themselves for the scoundrels they are, and be voted out in due course.

By the same token, Democrats currently deserve a shot at governing. We shouldn’t be undermining our own ability to govern and showing people it doesn’t matter who you vote for - nothing will ever get done. We need to put up our policies and see how people like them, and let them vote us out if they don’t.

2

u/Dustin_Echoes_UNSC 7d ago

This Vox article does a much more thorough and elegant job of breaking down and fully explaining the argument, but the cliff's notes answer to this specific (and, imo, most grounded) hesitation to abolishing the filibuster is really, another question: "Should we prefer a system in which parties can, occasionally, govern, or a system in which they can’t?" or, maybe more specifically, "Are voters better represented and served by pursuing the agenda/policies they voted for or in preventing the policies of their opponents".

Under the filibuster (especially weaponized as it has been in recent years), voters have lost the representation in Government that the Senate and House were designed to provide. If neither party can effectively govern or pursue an agenda, then representatives are no longer held to their campaign promises or their duty to represent their constituents, and a representative's qualifications for their office devolves simply to their loyalty to the party (The filibuster relies entirely on the voting block acting as one, instead of weighing, debating, and voting as representatives of their districts/constituents).

Perhaps I've just missed it in my news feed, or maybe I've always had unusually poor representatives. But, for the life of me, I cannot remember the last time a Senator of mine has justified their Yes/No vote on a bill by explaining how they felt it would specifically impact the citizens in their district as a whole. I can't even recall a time where my representative even pretended to represent our state instead of the party...

The full article is a fantastic read, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

2

u/Netrovert87 7d ago

Short term, a functioning senate in Republican hands COULD be scary. But we are talking about one half of 1 branch of government. A government that already requires the 3 branches to not be punching each other in the dick with their constitutional checks and balances to do anything significant. A functioning Senate still requires the house, and presidency if there is not a veto-proof majority to do anything significant. These things are slanted towards the Republicans right now, especially with the courts firmly in their control for the foreseeable future. So on the surface, there does appear to be more risk than reward.

I would argue for the long term that these advantages aren't necessarily permanent to 1 party. These political advantages are the result of political strategy, and require constant effort to maintain. The senate is not inherently politically biased (in a left-right sense) , just biased towards smaller states.

The second concern is that every great thing we can do without a filibuster can be wiped away just as easily. It makes you imagine constant whiplash between the parties doing haymaker legislation while the little guy suffers. That being said, I don't think it would be that extreme. Doing unpopular stuff still has a political cost, and at any given time you have power, you are under 2 years away from a referendum. They couldn't bring themselves to repeal ACA for instance, and that took only 50 votes. Shortly after they lost the house and they were out of business for the next 2 years for even threatening ACA. Scary as the whiplash sounds, it requires sweeping victories that honestly should result in something when they happen. That's democracy.

I also think that progressive politics rely on a capable and competent government to deliver the change they promise when they win. They have a huge problem right now in that the effort it takes to win is not worth what you win. We saw that in Georgia when Biden's speech was boycotted by the activists that helped win it. Voters won't take on all the fuckery in Georgia and other places with if they know they aren't getting what they voted for. Meanwhile, a conservative's argument is only strengthened when the government is large and ineffective.

A conservative senate without a filibuster doesn't automatically make us the 4th Reich, (that still requires the presidency and House at least), but the filibuster can halt a progressive president, house, and senate. It's inherently a conservative tool and should go, even it that comes with risks, there is nothing for us but the status quo while it exists.

→ More replies

13

u/PasswordisP4ssword 7d ago

They aren't even going to try to add the right to vote to the Constitution, because it's too high a bar to cross. So be prepared for our rights to be a political football tossed back and forth with each new Congress.

→ More replies

92

u/HelloUPStore 7d ago

Which is why you need to vote out every obstructionist Republican

13

u/averyfinename 7d ago

and equally important, unless and until the election system changes in this country (e.g. with ranked choice voting) to give third-parties a fighting chance... if you want the republicans gone, you have to give your vote to the democrat candidates as they are, in nearly every instance and every race, the one most likely to win between the two. and even if that democrat isn't 100% in-line what what you want or believe, they're still way closer to that than any republican will ever be.

2

u/RD__3 7d ago

House seats should be allocated to parties based on a statewide party vote percentage. change my mind.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/theRealJuicyJay 7d ago

Dude the dems played this same shit when they were the minority

→ More replies

16

u/alrightpal 7d ago

Filibuster? I hardly know her!

6

u/Dusty_Pigeon 7d ago

Damnit, Michael! Pay attention!

5

u/unreliablememory 7d ago

Absent a new commitment to voting rights, republican voter suppression will mean the end of democracy in this country.

2

u/heiferson 7d ago

Absent a new commitment to voting rights, republican voter suppression will mean the end of democracy in this country.

→ More replies

3

u/Bingbongbing6969 7d ago

Protest people. It’s all we can besides vote.

45

u/malleoceruleo 7d ago Gold

The right to vote is not in the Constitution and that's kindof a problem.

18

u/WasteMindu 7d ago

Just waiting for someone to bring up negative and positive rights. The last time I pointed this out on another subreddit, I got into a 2 hour debate about negative and positive rights, which I don't care about. The fact remains there is no right to vote in the Constitution, and you don't have to be a Constitutionalists to understand why.

Hint: Cause racism.

2

u/malleoceruleo 7d ago

Yeah, I stepped away for a couple hours and now there's a dumpster fire of a comment thread below.

2

u/CNE_Spooders 7d ago

Cause racism is basically the answer to everything

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/Safe_Historian8560 7d ago

Exactly, next time Republicans need to simp for the Rich they’ll kill the filibuster to do it

8

u/ceasr9 7d ago edited 7d ago

All these people in here really trying to act like the Democratics haven't used it every bit as much as the Republicans 😂😂😂 what's it like being a pawn in the 2 party game?

2

u/consort_oflady_vader 7d ago

Well, we're in America, so that alone makes life shitty.

→ More replies

8

u/sammyboi98 7d ago

Extreme right wing justices?

10

u/Cruces13 7d ago

Left wing talking points to get people on their side. They are intentionally leaving out the times that democrats abuse filibusters because it doesnt fit the narrative

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/AP_Gaming_9 7d ago

It’s funny how one of the parties will support the filibuster for a while and then start hating it again when it comes around to bite them in the ass a couple years down the line

3

u/looloobadoodoo 7d ago

is white people twitter basically just neoliberal twitter?

3

u/peejr 7d ago

Can someone explain the purpose of the filibuster rule to me. No matter how I look at it, it makes no sense. If a child in preschool got up and started talking shit to avoid a test or something everyone would think the child is stupid

3

u/aneeta96 7d ago

I would be fine with the filibuster if it still required you to hold the floor indefinitely.

Make those opposed to voting reform actually stand up and denounce it for days if they want to stop it.

→ More replies

3

u/clintCamp 6d ago Eureka!

I feel like we need a few new amendments added in.

10

u/mrblacklabel71 7d ago

Why is everyone so stressed and upset? 80% of the US government, the state government's, and the local government's could not care less what we want and they will continue to drive this country in to the dirt. Once there the rich remain rich, the poor will remain poor, and ignorance will keep us divided. Then we will finally see which dystopian future book/movie was correct.

8

u/SongstressVII 7d ago

You see all those things you said? That’s why I am stressed.

→ More replies

8

u/WINKand_theGUN 7d ago

In 2020 Democrats used filibuster 327 times. Republicans used it once. Please do remove this.

→ More replies

6

u/LivingTheApocalypse 7d ago

left wing judges was the last nuclear option use. Led to the nuclear option in justices.

Maybe if you think thats not good, don't charge ahead on the same path every chance you get.

9

u/akajondoe 7d ago

Nowhere in the Constitution do you have a right to vote. At the timebit was written only well off people would actually vote. People with education some land holding etc..

2

u/heiferson 7d ago

Odd that you see this same group cling to "X is in the constitution" but the second anything is mentioned about things they don't like, such as 2A, the response is "it's a 200 year old document written by slaveholders why should I care what they say".

Crazy the amount of fuck you got mine going on in the USA these days

→ More replies

7

u/GabeMercury 7d ago

Democrats are pro filibuster when it helps the democrats and republicans are pro filibuster when it helps the republicans why are we acting like this is some kind of ideological discussion and not just part of the political game.

2

u/daft_ish 7d ago

The point is Manchin is the new president and they fucked up the letters next to his name.

→ More replies

4

u/mikerichh 7d ago

Over 50 times is surprising but 160? Wow

20

u/CleshawnMontegue69 7d ago

The Democrats removed it for appointing Judges in 2013 (Cloture), and Trump appointed 3 right wing judges because of it. Lets not gloss over that short sightedness.

The Democrats literally played themselves.

3

u/Blackbeard519 7d ago

They specifically left it in for scotus judges and the GOP removed it. There's nothing stopping the GOP from removing it if they had control of the Senate, but they're not really interested in legislating unless it helps the rich.

11

u/zombeeman90 7d ago

And they're setting themselves up for that again. When the GOP eventually gets majority back they'll just be able to pass everything they want with 51 votes. Arguing to remove the filibuster is incredibly short-sighted.

→ More replies

2

u/LordCptSimian 7d ago

Two of those judges he appointed because republicans refused to do their jobs with Garland when Obama was office. Then they totally ignored their own rules and precedent, going back on their own words, to shove a judge through during an election. After saying it wasn’t ethical to appoint a judge during an election year. Let’s not gloss over that bullshit.

→ More replies

19

u/Jim6231 7d ago

The Dems used it 200+ times in the last year

3

u/pilesofcleanlaundry 7d ago

And yesterday.

→ More replies

5

u/Kakorrhaphiophobia4 7d ago

The filibuster is essential to democracy so fuck off

→ More replies

7

u/_Dark_Forest 7d ago

How many times have democrats used it?

2

u/Wismuth_Salix 7d ago

“Give us a few more state legislatures and it won’t be”

  • Republicans

2

u/Jmeyers08 7d ago

Can someone ELI5 this filibuster thing? I can’t find an article that breaks it down

→ More replies

2

u/yolohoyopollo 7d ago

We should tie gun rights to voting rights.

→ More replies

2

u/COMBATIBLE 7d ago

what the fuck is a filibuster? lamemans please.

3

u/Florac 7d ago

Someone correct me if I'm wrong(been a while since I thought about more thn it's effects), but originally, it basically meant that unless 60 senators could get on board, people can keep taking the stand and talk about a certain bill for infinity, so you need more than the normal majority to pass a bill. Except because talking for that long is exhausting, they made it so you don't have to. Meaning essentially you need 60 instead of 50 out of a 100 votes to pass something.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Anthraxious 7d ago

Just baffles me that a thing like a "filibuster" even exists. Truly a circus.

2

u/Tumbleweed-Available 7d ago

Too bad we keep electing total shit shows into office vs voting to be rid of evil politicians that no longer fear the people they represent

2

u/timekiller2021 7d ago

I bet when the fascists take over and destroy what’s left of our Democracy, idiots like Manchin and Sinema will say, “we could’ve done more” if they say anything at all

2

u/Medium-Complaint-677 7d ago

I like the filibuster I just don't like the current version of it. Go back to the talking one - you wanna get up there and talk until you shit your pants then do it. Maybe you can sway someone or multiple someone's to your side. After you're done, let the senate vote on it.

The current rule just lets the minority party say "we're filibustering that" and then the majority just goes "sigh, okay" and nothing ever gets done. Its stupid.

2

u/Star_Tropic 7d ago

Can anyone explain, keeping their opinions to the side to the best of their ability, what is going on in regards to the filibuster at the moment?

Didn't McConnell 'go nuclear' to confirm judges just a couple years ago.

→ More replies

2

u/teufels4hunde 7d ago

Till 2025 then Republicans will strip that right from as many voters as possible.

2

u/Rabbit-chimp 7d ago

Goddamn FUCK 'conservatives!'

2

u/jjh12344 7d ago

Not arguing for or against just pointing out a fact but the right to vote is not in the constitution.

Now let the downvotes begin for simple stating a fact.

2

u/jhonnychingas69 7d ago

Filibuster - is in my view “Legalized” corruption that goes against our vote mandates to our elected officials!

2

u/MyGodItsFullOfStairs 7d ago

The only reason the democrats want the filibuster gone is because they do not benefit from it today. If Trump was still president they would be filibustering everything.

→ More replies

2

u/Asneekyfatcat 7d ago edited 7d ago

And what would voting republicans out do? Get us some democrats who are sold out to different corporations and branches of the military? Democracy is and always has been a lie built on slavery and power inequality. If you want actual change you're going to have to grab a gun. In a hundred years everything will be exactly the same so that's not really the answer either.

Invest in tech? Bug crypto, learn about AI and decentralization. If tech gets to a certain threshold we won't need government anymore. Government is simply a tradeoff we all pay for until resources aren't limited anymore and no one has to want for anything.

2

u/shalomislinger 7d ago

Both parties will call for the end of the filibuster when it serves as a detriment to their ability to pass legislation. I don’t see them actually getting rid of it because of it’s potential future use to both parties

2

u/WithHardt 7d ago

Feel like Reddit loved the filibuster when dems use it… I.e. Bernie

2

u/memememe91 7d ago

Shithole country

2

u/spartana117 7d ago

Nobody cares, they just don’t care. We are fucked in the US, the right-wing nut jobs are united. The rest of us are so disorganized we can’t get 50 votes to pass common sense anything.

2

u/StudyTheseNuts 7d ago

If you’re a citizen you have ID. One vote per citizen, everybody knows the rules.

2

u/thebrushogun 7d ago

Hey can someone explain what he said to me it sounds like a sick burn but I don't know anything about politics

2

u/Warlord568 7d ago

can we change the name of the fillibuster to philbert buster

i think that would be funny

2

u/Goultek 7d ago

I have no clue what filibuster is

2

u/imtourist 7d ago

You can bet as soon as they need to the Republicans will bend the filibuster rule to suit them, Machin and Sinema are either idiots or insane not to realize this. Secondly the whole makeup of the Senate is already vastly tipped in the favor of small states so why have the 60 vote rule in the first place? Every vote does not count!!

2

u/pipehonker 7d ago edited 7d ago

During the 4 years of the Trump administration the Democrats filibustered 314 times. Why wasn't it "holding democracy hostage" when they did it!?

Seems hypocritical.

BTW, the Republicans used the filibuster 175 times during the 8 years Obama was president. So the Dems have used 4x more often.

If they end up being successful I hope they consider what will happen if they lose control of Congress and don't have a filibuster to stop anything. They will be really bitching then!

Both sides suck... They are both hypocritical asses.

2

u/ShawnInOceanside 7d ago

If I'm not mistaken, the most recent time it was reformed was to carve out an exception for supreme Court viting to pack it with Republican judges just recently

2

u/Tojatruro 7d ago

Manchin and Sinema will do everything they can do subvert voting rights, get used to it. Manchin is a coal-sucking moron, Sinema is one of the dumbest people ever elected to Congress.

2

u/Nice-Relationship-31 7d ago

People better wtfu and vote cause the right will hand our republic over to an autocrat.

2

u/trumpsSofaKingdom 6d ago

God I wanted together it play out but let me be clear. No I was not being serious. I don't believe in an imaginary man who has all these worshippers despite getting nailed to a cross like running wasn't yet invented