6 ms·

Nobody changes it because they know they are going to need it when they are the minority. Someone is gonna have to take one for the team and pull the plug on it

Nobody changes it because they know they are going to need it when they are the minority. Someone is gonna have to take one for the team and pull the plug on it, but I have little faith in our government ever doing the “principled” thing.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). At the time, McConnell told them that if they killed the filibuster for federal judges, he would kill it for supreme court justices. In 2017, he followed through on his promise, the orange fool appointed 3 justices, and now Roe v. Wade has been overturned. It would not be crazy to link the overturning of Roe to the 2013 decision of Harry Reid to invoke the "nuclear option." It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism. I doubt that getting a few extra progressive federal judicial nominees through was worth those supreme court seats. For now, it seems that enough of the Senate has learned their lesson about removing the filibuster.
- Clubber 4y ago
  >In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). Yes, it was an extremely aggressive and short sighted thing for him to do. Most people don't know this story though, so it seems the Democratic Party gets a pass. Here's McConnell lambasting Reid about it in 2013. https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcconnell-nuclear-option https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcco... >It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism. Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism Based on recent decisions, we seem to be currently in an era of judicial restraint, not activism. Again, the SCOTUS doesn't create laws, congress does. That's the way the system was designed. I hope the Citizens United decision will get overturned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    But there is likewise nothing preventing court packing right now except the concern of some democrats right? They could assign 8 more, then next time there is a swap the gop would add 16 etc. You have to go exponential by nature of the vote to account for deaths. So in as little as 116 years the whole population might be on the bench! I don't like that the macro level policy of our nation is getting decided based on rules of order and who is willing to change them. I'm not a historian, but it seems like the filibuster was already a hack around intended operation of the legislature. Time limiting it would still serve the purpose of preventing the minority from getting shut down with no chance to speak, but also prevent its abuse to require 60 votes on absolutely everything.
    - Clubber 4y ago
      >But there is likewise nothing preventing court packing right now except the concern of some democrats right? Right. FDR threatened this during his administration and bullied the SCOTUS into deciding his way. He was quite Machiavellian. For me, doing something like this would neuter one of the tiers of the check and balance system. https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin... >I'm not a historian, but it seems like the filibuster was already a hack around intended operation of the legislature. Yes, but it's procedure that the senate had agreed on for quite some time. There's nothing in the constitution that says how many votes are needed to pass, the senate decides that, and for most things, it's 60. >require 60 votes on absolutely everything. Depends on how you look at it. Do you want a political party to make laws of the land with only 25+ states supporting it? It sounds good when it's something you support, but doesn't sound great when it isn't. The idea of the 60 vote rule is the federal government can't enact legislation that a supermajority of the country isn't in favor of. Regardless of your party affiliation, you can imagine what horrible legislation would be passed if the opposing party was allowed to pass anything with just 50+1 votes in the senate.
  - rat87 4y ago
    No it was a wise and practical decision. And the fillibuster has always been a stupid accident of the rules. It delayed civil rights bills by over a decade Everyone knew that McConnell was lying and would have overturned the fillibuster on judges the second a supreme court fillibuster started. And we would have gotten the same extremist supreme court that laughs at restaint and takes away fundamental rights
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  You're missing a piece of the puzzle actually - this goes back to George Walker Bush's presidency. Democrats were being extremely obstructionist in GWB's federal judges. Republicans were considering throwing out the filibuster in response. Moderates from both parties got together and convinced their respective sides to back down and let judges get through while maintaining the filibuster. In 2013, the tactic was pulled out by Republicans, and the Democrats used the - given the history of this tactic - unsurprising response after some time. Which, of course, led to 2017.
- rat87 4y ago
  It would be absolutely insane to link overturning Roe to Reid's decision. Everyone already knew McConnell would have gotten rid of it anyway the second a supreme court justice was fillibustered. Look at his actions in the Garland and Barrett nominations, compared to that getting rid of the fillibuster for judges is peanuts. The only mistake Reid made was not to do away with the fillibuster fully
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    If you threaten to do something and don't follow through on your threats, they have no more meaning. McConnell and his party apparently had a similar situation 10 years before and did not throw out the filibuster.
    - mattnewton 4y ago
      It wasn’t the same situation because there wasnt a court majority at stake. Unless not voting on the Supreme Court nominee’s of Obama was also because of Reid’s actions?
- Pulcinella 4y ago
  The filibuster isn’t even dead. Senators can still get up there and talk for as long as they want (aka what the filibustering actually is). The current filibuster rule is basically a senator just saying “yeah I want to filibuster this” and for some reason everyone just goes along with it.
  - camel_Snake 4y ago
    this isn't quite accurate. The modern filibuster is basically a move to table discussions, and it takes 60 senators to overcome that delay and continue to a vote. The problem is the onus is on the 60 senators who want to pass it, and not the 40 senators who want to delay voting. In this way it's stupidly easy to block any legislation by telling the other side "I'm gonna filibuster this." and if they want to pass it they need to pull the ~10+ votes and make it bipartisan. This is a lot of work so they normally don't even try.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). At the time, McConnell told them that if they killed the filibuster for federal judges, he would kill it for supreme court justices. In 2017, he followed through on his promise, the orange fool appointed 3 justices, and now Roe v. Wade has been overturned. It would not be crazy to link the overturning of Roe to the 2013 decision of Harry Reid to invoke the "nuclear option." It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism. I doubt that getting a few extra progressive federal judicial nominees through was worth those supreme court seats. For now, it seems that enough of the Senate has learned their lesson about removing the filibuster.

Clubber 4y ago
>In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). Yes, it was an extremely aggressive and short sighted thing for him to do. Most people don't know this story though, so it seems the Democratic Party gets a pass. Here's McConnell lambasting Reid about it in 2013. https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcconnell-nuclear-option https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcco... >It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism. Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism Based on recent decisions, we seem to be currently in an era of judicial restraint, not activism. Again, the SCOTUS doesn't create laws, congress does. That's the way the system was designed. I hope the Citizens United decision will get overturned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  But there is likewise nothing preventing court packing right now except the concern of some democrats right? They could assign 8 more, then next time there is a swap the gop would add 16 etc. You have to go exponential by nature of the vote to account for deaths. So in as little as 116 years the whole population might be on the bench! I don't like that the macro level policy of our nation is getting decided based on rules of order and who is willing to change them. I'm not a historian, but it seems like the filibuster was already a hack around intended operation of the legislature. Time limiting it would still serve the purpose of preventing the minority from getting shut down with no chance to speak, but also prevent its abuse to require 60 votes on absolutely everything.
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >But there is likewise nothing preventing court packing right now except the concern of some democrats right? Right. FDR threatened this during his administration and bullied the SCOTUS into deciding his way. He was quite Machiavellian. For me, doing something like this would neuter one of the tiers of the check and balance system. https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin... >I'm not a historian, but it seems like the filibuster was already a hack around intended operation of the legislature. Yes, but it's procedure that the senate had agreed on for quite some time. There's nothing in the constitution that says how many votes are needed to pass, the senate decides that, and for most things, it's 60. >require 60 votes on absolutely everything. Depends on how you look at it. Do you want a political party to make laws of the land with only 25+ states supporting it? It sounds good when it's something you support, but doesn't sound great when it isn't. The idea of the 60 vote rule is the federal government can't enact legislation that a supermajority of the country isn't in favor of. Regardless of your party affiliation, you can imagine what horrible legislation would be passed if the opposing party was allowed to pass anything with just 50+1 votes in the senate.
- rat87 4y ago
  No it was a wise and practical decision. And the fillibuster has always been a stupid accident of the rules. It delayed civil rights bills by over a decade Everyone knew that McConnell was lying and would have overturned the fillibuster on judges the second a supreme court fillibuster started. And we would have gotten the same extremist supreme court that laughs at restaint and takes away fundamental rights
bcrosby95 4y ago
You're missing a piece of the puzzle actually - this goes back to George Walker Bush's presidency. Democrats were being extremely obstructionist in GWB's federal judges. Republicans were considering throwing out the filibuster in response. Moderates from both parties got together and convinced their respective sides to back down and let judges get through while maintaining the filibuster. In 2013, the tactic was pulled out by Republicans, and the Democrats used the - given the history of this tactic - unsurprising response after some time. Which, of course, led to 2017.
rat87 4y ago
It would be absolutely insane to link overturning Roe to Reid's decision. Everyone already knew McConnell would have gotten rid of it anyway the second a supreme court justice was fillibustered. Look at his actions in the Garland and Barrett nominations, compared to that getting rid of the fillibuster for judges is peanuts. The only mistake Reid made was not to do away with the fillibuster fully
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  If you threaten to do something and don't follow through on your threats, they have no more meaning. McConnell and his party apparently had a similar situation 10 years before and did not throw out the filibuster.
  - mattnewton 4y ago
    It wasn’t the same situation because there wasnt a court majority at stake. Unless not voting on the Supreme Court nominee’s of Obama was also because of Reid’s actions?
Pulcinella 4y ago
The filibuster isn’t even dead. Senators can still get up there and talk for as long as they want (aka what the filibustering actually is). The current filibuster rule is basically a senator just saying “yeah I want to filibuster this” and for some reason everyone just goes along with it.
- camel_Snake 4y ago
  this isn't quite accurate. The modern filibuster is basically a move to table discussions, and it takes 60 senators to overcome that delay and continue to a vote. The problem is the onus is on the 60 senators who want to pass it, and not the 40 senators who want to delay voting. In this way it's stupidly easy to block any legislation by telling the other side "I'm gonna filibuster this." and if they want to pass it they need to pull the ~10+ votes and make it bipartisan. This is a lot of work so they normally don't even try.