5 ms·
The filibuster makes this kind of 'control' moot. You need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House to actually get anything done
by kaibee 2y ago
The filibuster makes this kind of 'control' moot. You need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House to actually get anything done (and the Presidency, to not veto). 'Control of half of Congress' when that half is the house, is meaningless.
- gojomo 2y agoThat applies equally when each party is the filibuster-sized minority in the Senate. And: if Senate majorities really want to pass something, they can change the filibuster rules – and have, for some topics. Otherwise, the filibuster is maintained out of tradition, courtesy, and its usefulness as a change-of-control 'debounce' mechanism – as well as providing a convenient excuse for posturing more and doing less, as Congress is wont. Still, in other eras, Congress was able to move compromise legislation forward. Recently, Congress has been unable to – both parties, no matter the relative control. Any belief that it's only "the other guys" is partisan myside blindness.