4 ms·

The filibuster is a set of rules that both parties agreed to. One might well ask why Democrats in the senate agreed to this rule once again, knowing full well i

by tdeck 6y ago

The filibuster is a set of rules that both parties agreed to. One might well ask why Democrats in the senate agreed to this rule once again, knowing full well it would impede their ability to accomplish their publicly touted platform over the next few years.

bluGill 6y ago
The obvious answer is eventually they will be out of power again and will want it. In fact until a few years ago they had it for judges, but they got rid of it when Republicans filibustered. Then when Trump nominated a judge they didn't like, well they discovered the filibuster was gone by their own doing and they were powerless.
- pasquinelli 6y ago
  that obvious answer is not a good one. when democrats got material gains for working people they controlled congress from 1933 to 1980 except for two years. getting rid of the filibuster and packing the supreme court to pass and see to fruition real material gains would make democrats the ruling party for the foreseeable future. they don't do that because that's not what they want.
  - nickff 6y ago
    You don’t get elected for doing things, you get electing for promising to do things.
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  The obvious answer isn't really applicable here, though it does cross the lips of plenty of moderates. The reality is that the Democratic party is forced into being a "big tent" party of "everyone left of the Republicans," which represents a simply massive spectrum, and therefore they have less consensus than the Republican party. Take, for example, Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia who drew some ire after FiveThirtyEight found he sided with Trump's priorities 58% of the time. He's been vocal that he would never agree to eliminate the filibuster, because he's basically a Republican in all but name.
  - Naracion 6y ago
    As an international who is not as familiar with American politics (but wants to understand), why is this comment being down voted? Are the claims incorrect? Are they unsubstantiated?
    - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
      As the person who wrote it, I'm not sure; I think this one of those things that's colored by opinion as much as fact. I would like to hear someone say what they think. The bit about Manchin is fact, though. They can't change the rule without him, and he doesn't want to eliminate the filibuster. He did say that he would consider modifying it to make it more difficult, however.
      - astrange 6y ago
        Manchin is doing theater to appeal to his voter base, who are indeed largely not in his party. He's being far more cooperative than, say, Liebermann was while passing the ACA, and his actual goal is to say he's fighting those out of control big city liberals by keeping the filibuster, but the changes he'll allow will make it completely different and more or less how it was in the 90s. Sinema also wants to keep it and seems to actually be a true believer, which is dumb and not even what her voters want, so who knows what's up with that.
        brendoelfrendo 6y ago
        I always forget about Sinema, which is something I need to stop doing because, as you say, she's probably the true believer. I don't think we can be too charitable towards Manchin considering his other stances. That said, you raise a good point: changing the filibuster doesn't really change his position; he's still an essential vote to pass any legislation in a tied senate, so he benefits from either outcome. I suppose, all other things being equal, it makes sense for him to nominally oppose ending the filibuster for the sake of his base.
      - refurb 6y ago
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  That's not true. Mitch McConnell got rid of the SCOTUS 'filibuster' lowered it to 51 votes - pretty hypocritically based on his statements but you can't take McConnell's word you have to look at what has power. Harry Reid previously lowered cloture threshold for non SCOTUS appointments, but only after Republicans act(ed) in bad faith and refused to "Advice and Consent." They refused to confirm 2 very important seats for 'cost savings' and claimed that the DC circuit was 'underworked.' This is in the context of anti-Obama everything and no matter how milquetoast the nominee was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_in_2013_and_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_in_2013_and...
rtkwe 6y ago
Kind of, the filibuster isn't so much in the rules as it's a consequence of other rules and (imo) a poorly designed government. The Senate was originally setup with truly unlimited debate, this is a pretty bad idea on the face of it because it allows a pretty small group to potentially completely stall the whole of the US government's law making apparatus. [0] So cloture was added which added a way to officially close debate on a bill to avoid that. It requires more coordination but still introduces an extra veto point into the government that most modern democracies don't have. It's an extremely powerful tool for the minority. That very power is a reason I think there's a few hold outs on the Democrat side that don't want to get rid of it. The senate is naturally stacked against the democrats as the parties are currently aligned so a few don't want to risk giving up that power. There's also a number who (at least claim to) believe that the unlimited debate is an important part of the Senate. Personally I think it's a relic that's getting in the way of passing the exact legislation that will make Democrats more popular (and make it easier to vote to counteract some extremely blatant voter suppression happening in red states). [0] consider 3 senators working 8 hour shifts of 8 on 16 off. That would be maintainable for a very long time.
- dcow 6y ago
  The US govt is heavily calibrated on the side of minority political factions in order to protect minorities from “oppressive” majority rule. It’s annoying when it gets in the way of the majority but also fundamental to how the US operates. What recent events tell me is that we’re looking to the federal government to do more than it is/was meant to do. If that’s dated so be it but I dont understand why states have to wait around for the federal government to solve healthcare.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    > It’s annoying when it gets in the way of the majority but also fundamental to how the US operates. I think a government where the majority party can't actually implement any kind of agenda is a fundamentally broken government. > I dont understand why states have to wait around for the federal government to solve healthcare. Because they're ironically forbidden by federal law. Several legislators in CA would love to bring a statewide single-payer healthcare bill forward, but funding it would require using federal Medicare dollars in ways that require permission from the US Congress. Guess how likely that'll be forthcoming?

by tdeck 6y ago

bluGill 6y ago

The obvious answer is eventually they will be out of power again and will want it. In fact until a few years ago they had it for judges, but they got rid of it when Republicans filibustered. Then when Trump nominated a judge they didn't like, well they discovered the filibuster was gone by their own doing and they were powerless.

pasquinelli 6y ago
that obvious answer is not a good one. when democrats got material gains for working people they controlled congress from 1933 to 1980 except for two years. getting rid of the filibuster and packing the supreme court to pass and see to fruition real material gains would make democrats the ruling party for the foreseeable future. they don't do that because that's not what they want.
- nickff 6y ago
  You don’t get elected for doing things, you get electing for promising to do things.
brendoelfrendo 6y ago
The obvious answer isn't really applicable here, though it does cross the lips of plenty of moderates. The reality is that the Democratic party is forced into being a "big tent" party of "everyone left of the Republicans," which represents a simply massive spectrum, and therefore they have less consensus than the Republican party. Take, for example, Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia who drew some ire after FiveThirtyEight found he sided with Trump's priorities 58% of the time. He's been vocal that he would never agree to eliminate the filibuster, because he's basically a Republican in all but name.
- Naracion 6y ago
  As an international who is not as familiar with American politics (but wants to understand), why is this comment being down voted? Are the claims incorrect? Are they unsubstantiated?
  - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
    As the person who wrote it, I'm not sure; I think this one of those things that's colored by opinion as much as fact. I would like to hear someone say what they think. The bit about Manchin is fact, though. They can't change the rule without him, and he doesn't want to eliminate the filibuster. He did say that he would consider modifying it to make it more difficult, however.
    - astrange 6y ago
      Manchin is doing theater to appeal to his voter base, who are indeed largely not in his party. He's being far more cooperative than, say, Liebermann was while passing the ACA, and his actual goal is to say he's fighting those out of control big city liberals by keeping the filibuster, but the changes he'll allow will make it completely different and more or less how it was in the 90s. Sinema also wants to keep it and seems to actually be a true believer, which is dumb and not even what her voters want, so who knows what's up with that.
      - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
        I always forget about Sinema, which is something I need to stop doing because, as you say, she's probably the true believer. I don't think we can be too charitable towards Manchin considering his other stances. That said, you raise a good point: changing the filibuster doesn't really change his position; he's still an essential vote to pass any legislation in a tied senate, so he benefits from either outcome. I suppose, all other things being equal, it makes sense for him to nominally oppose ending the filibuster for the sake of his base.
    - refurb 6y ago
dillondoyle 6y ago
That's not true. Mitch McConnell got rid of the SCOTUS 'filibuster' lowered it to 51 votes - pretty hypocritically based on his statements but you can't take McConnell's word you have to look at what has power. Harry Reid previously lowered cloture threshold for non SCOTUS appointments, but only after Republicans act(ed) in bad faith and refused to "Advice and Consent." They refused to confirm 2 very important seats for 'cost savings' and claimed that the DC circuit was 'underworked.' This is in the context of anti-Obama everything and no matter how milquetoast the nominee was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_in_2013_and_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_in_2013_and...

rtkwe 6y ago

Kind of, the filibuster isn't so much in the rules as it's a consequence of other rules and (imo) a poorly designed government. The Senate was originally setup with truly unlimited debate, this is a pretty bad idea on the face of it because it allows a pretty small group to potentially completely stall the whole of the US government's law making apparatus. [0] So cloture was added which added a way to officially close debate on a bill to avoid that. It requires more coordination but still introduces an extra veto point into the government that most modern democracies don't have. It's an extremely powerful tool for the minority. That very power is a reason I think there's a few hold outs on the Democrat side that don't want to get rid of it. The senate is naturally stacked against the democrats as the parties are currently aligned so a few don't want to risk giving up that power. There's also a number who (at least claim to) believe that the unlimited debate is an important part of the Senate. Personally I think it's a relic that's getting in the way of passing the exact legislation that will make Democrats more popular (and make it easier to vote to counteract some extremely blatant voter suppression happening in red states). [0] consider 3 senators working 8 hour shifts of 8 on 16 off. That would be maintainable for a very long time.

dcow 6y ago
The US govt is heavily calibrated on the side of minority political factions in order to protect minorities from “oppressive” majority rule. It’s annoying when it gets in the way of the majority but also fundamental to how the US operates. What recent events tell me is that we’re looking to the federal government to do more than it is/was meant to do. If that’s dated so be it but I dont understand why states have to wait around for the federal government to solve healthcare.
- kelnos 6y ago
  > It’s annoying when it gets in the way of the majority but also fundamental to how the US operates. I think a government where the majority party can't actually implement any kind of agenda is a fundamentally broken government. > I dont understand why states have to wait around for the federal government to solve healthcare. Because they're ironically forbidden by federal law. Several legislators in CA would love to bring a statewide single-payer healthcare bill forward, but funding it would require using federal Medicare dollars in ways that require permission from the US Congress. Guess how likely that'll be forthcoming?