Biden Considering Filibuster Exception for Voting Rights

[fskimospy]

Well, allegedly she just thinks she's smarter than everyone around her. She's literally the Principal Skinner meme of being out of touch and blaming it on everyone else.

The only thing that makes sense to me is she’s trying to line up some gig after Congress because her future in elected government is done.

 

[K1052]

Well, allegedly she just thinks she's smarter than everyone around her. She's literally the Principal Skinner meme of being out of touch and blaming it on everyone else.

This is one reason I think the chatter that she thinks she's going to run for president is possibly true. It's crazy and incredibly blind but doesn't lack for people willing to encourage it for their own motives who will tell her she's brilliant.

 

[fskimospy]

This is one reason I think the chatter that she thinks she's going to run for president is possibly true. It's crazy and incredibly blind but doesn't lack from people willing to encourage it for their own motives who will tell her she's brilliant.

That is Bill de Blasio for president levels of dumb.

 

[pauldun170]

I still need to check the data BUT...

Sinema and Manchin Flush With Lobbyist Contributions as They Hold Up Biden Agenda

Amid ongoing Build Back Better negotiations, lobbyists have stepped up their contributions to Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.

www.dataforprogress.org

 

[K1052]

The only thing that makes sense to me is she’s trying to line up some gig after Congress because her future in elected government is done.

Gallego is going to just burn her down in the primary if she bothers to run for her seat again.

That is Bill de Blasio for president levels of dumb.

Probably worse since there are still some Democrats that like BdB. Sinema seems determined to wholly crush her appeal to any D voter.

 

[HomerJS]

There's only one thing that will fix this. The next time the debt ceiling comes up a Democrat needs to filibuster it. When asked why just repeat all her old quotes.

The deal, I'll go along with a rule exception for the debt ceiling if you do the same for voting rights. A real nuclear option, unless someone has a better idea.

 

[fskimospy]

There's only one thing that will fix this. The next time the debt ceiling comes up a Democrat needs to filibuster it. When asked why just repeat all her old quotes.

The deal, I'll go along with a rule exception for the debt ceiling if you do the same for voting rights. A real nuclear option, unless someone has a better idea.

Just because republicans have been playing games with the debt ceiling for years is no reason for the democrats to start. They should abolish it and be done with it.

 

[eelw]

Just because republicans have been playing games with the debt ceiling for years is no reason for the democrats to start. They should abolish it and be done with it.

Lol yup. They’re not going to cut off their nose to spite their face. And main reason why Moscow Mitch told his caucus to not raise any objections for the extensions they did last month. Yea he wants to obstruct dem policy. But he can’t send entire country in turmoil at the same time.

 

[Sunburn74]

Seems you can’t get a registration form due to “supply chain issues”: But that’s ok, they can just register online. Oh wait, Texas doesn’t have online registration? Sucks to be you, I guess.

Texas says supply chain issues have limited the number of voter registration forms it can give out

The Texas League of Women Voters says this shortage is disproportionately affecting the thousands of newly naturalized citizens they usually register each year.

www.kut.org

Obvious law

I still need to check the data BUT...

Sinema and Manchin Flush With Lobbyist Contributions as They Hold Up Biden Agenda

Amid ongoing Build Back Better negotiations, lobbyists have stepped up their contributions to Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin.

www.dataforprogress.org

I don't think it'll matter ultimately. The press is too bad on these guys. People won't suddenly forget them when next year the GOP has controls everything. Right now the only people who really likes these guys are republicans who wouldn't vote for them anyway. As for sinema, she largely rose to power due to massive progressive backing. It's not going to happen again as those groups are now gunning to unseat her in a primary.

 

[Pohemi]

Nice Freudian slip by McConnell on voting

 

[pauldun170]

Nice Freudian slip by McConnell on voting

Confirmed. Just in case you are wondering that they cut off the rest of the sentence. That's it.
Also noteworthy was when he asked about his agenda if he takes power again was "......................................................."
No agenda.
He's just trying to figure out what tone trump or the the next strongman is going to set.

 

[Ken g6]

I am relatively happy they didn't carve out a filibuster exception for voting rights. If they had, Republicans would later carve out exceptions for gun rights (which might have a better constitutional argument). And fetal rights. And polluter rights. And so on.

 

[cytg111]

I am relatively happy they didn't carve out a filibuster exception for voting rights. If they had, Republicans would later carve out exceptions for gun rights (which might have a better constitutional argument). And fetal rights. And polluter rights. And so on.

Odds are that they're gonna do that anyway now.

 

[IronWing]

I am relatively happy they didn't carve out a filibuster exception for voting rights. If they had, Republicans would later carve out exceptions for gun rights (which might have a better constitutional argument). And fetal rights. And polluter rights. And so on.

Moscow Mitch dumps the filibuster anytime that it is convenient to his agenda. This argument is a dead letter and Sinema knows it. I think seeing the state of Sinema's personal finances would cast light on her conduct.

 

[fskimospy]

I am relatively happy they didn't carve out a filibuster exception for voting rights. If they had, Republicans would later carve out exceptions for gun rights (which might have a better constitutional argument). And fetal rights. And polluter rights. And so on.

How about we just abolish it entirely and let the people who win elections enact their agenda like basically every other democracy on earth.

I don’t think ‘let’s get nothing done because then the other side also can’t get anything done’ is a good model for governance.

 

[pauldun170]

I am relatively happy they didn't carve out a filibuster exception for voting rights. If they had, Republicans would later carve out exceptions for gun rights (which might have a better constitutional argument). And fetal rights. And polluter rights. And so on.

Republicans WILL change the rules whenever it suits them and have changed the rules whenever it suited them

Republicans Nuke the Filibuster to Put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court

In a historic party-line vote, the GOP changed the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees and paved the way for President Trump’s pick to win final confirmation on Friday.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Brainonska511]

I am relatively happy they didn't carve out a filibuster exception for voting rights. If they had, Republicans would later carve out exceptions for gun rights (which might have a better constitutional argument). And fetal rights. And polluter rights. And so on.

Besides the points that people have already brought up (Republicans have no compunction changing rules to ram through their real agenda): why is voting rights a worse constitutional argument for a carve-out? One, the filibuster is not in the Constitution. And two, Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to alter laws and regulations regarding elections for federal officials. And additional amendments added scope to Congress to pass laws to regulate elections.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans WILL change the rules whenever it suits them and have changed the rules whenever it suited them

Republicans Nuke the Filibuster to Put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court

In a historic party-line vote, the GOP changed the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees and paved the way for President Trump’s pick to win final confirmation on Friday.

www.theatlantic.com

Yes, if anyone thinks that Republicans would hesitate for a second to eliminate the filibuster if it stood in the way of their agenda they are dreaming. The main reason they won't do that going forward though is they ALREADY exempted basically their entire agenda from the filibuster.

 

[Ken g6]

How about we just abolish it entirely and let the people who win elections enact their agenda like basically every other democracy on earth.

I don’t think ‘let’s get nothing done because then the other side also can’t get anything done’ is a good model for governance.

Staying on autopilot is better than constantly wrestling with the wheel of the ship of state. Without the filibuster, policy will swing wildly back and forth as long as this partisanship continues.

The other problem is that Republican voters really seem to believe that there is at least a strong potential for election fraud. Whether it's true is slightly less important right now than that half the country believes it, and will be livid if a bill passed by one party without a large majority leads to (or appears to lead to) that party winning a lot of votes.

It seems like there should actually be a lot of common ground here. Both sides of the people are worried about elections not reflecting the will of the people. Faux News claims that mail-in voting will lead to fraud. OK, let's leave that alone. Making election day a federal holiday shouldn't be contentious. The Georgia election law expands early voting, so that shouldn't be contentious either (in a perfectly logical world).

My question now is whether Democrats can craft a voting reform law that Republican politicians can't weasel out of without looking bad.

 

[pauldun170]

Lets also talk about what the "both sides idiots" are attempting to bullshit you with

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Harry Reid says 82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama, 86 blocked under all other presidents

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was about to execute the "nuclear option" -- changing the chamber’s rules

www.politifact.com

Reid used it because Mitch McConnell pulled his bullshit where he shut down all nominations because "Black man president".

Six weeks after Obama took office in 2009, all 41 Republican senators — just enough to sustain a filibuster — had signed a letter telling him they’d oppose any nominee for a judgeship unless Obama had advance approval of a Republican senator from the nominee’s state.

Obama had already consulted with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana before nominating a federal district judge from Indiana, David Hamilton, to the federal appeals court for the 7th circuit. Yet McConnell lined up every other Republican against Hamilton.

For Obama’s entire first term, for example, Republicans prevented him from filling four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, second in prestige to the Supreme Court. They argued, as they had in the Clinton administration, that the D.C. court wasn’t busy enough for more judges. During George W. Bush’s presidency, however, Republicans had made sure the Senate confirmed three of his nominees to the court.
“You will regret this,” McConnell said. Just over three years later, as majority leader, McConnell had his party end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, too. President Trump’s three picks — Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — wouldn’t have been confirmed otherwise.

Some Democrats blame Reid for opening the door to McConnell’s action in 2017. But anyone who thinks McConnell wouldn’t have gone nuclear absent Reid’s precedent hasn’t paid attention to just how far McConnell will go to capture the courts for conservatives.

In the year after Reid’s nuclear strike, the Democrats were able to place more than 100 Obama nominees onto the federal bench before losing their majority. Most of those nominations would have been blocked by the Republicans otherwise.

Calmes: Jackie on Harry Reid

Republicans left the Nevada senator with little choice but to break the filibuster rule.

www.latimes.com

 

[IronWing]

My question now is whether Democrats can craft a voting reform law that Republican politicians can't weasel out of without looking bad.

They did. The Republicans look bad, very, very bad. But Republicans don't care how they look. They just want power out of proportion to their ability to draw voters.

 

[fskimospy]

Staying on autopilot is better than constantly wrestling with the wheel of the ship of state. Without the filibuster, policy will swing wildly back and forth as long as this partisanship continues.

I see no evidence of this. Republicans held a trifecta in 2017, is there any evidence whatsoever that they didn't pursue parts of their agenda due to the filibuster? They couldn't even muster 50 votes to repeal the ACA. Even better though, policy swings are a feature, not a bug as if both were allowed to actually implement their agendas then voters could make an informed choice about the results. As it stands now when in power Republicans cut taxes for rich people and then don't do anything else to solve the country's problems. When Democrats are in power Republicans stop them from doing anything to solve the country's problems with the filibuster. To a casual observer this looks like 'no matter who is in power, nothing changes', which validates the Republican strategy.

My point is very simple - it is already very hard to achieve a useful governing majority in the US system. You have to win the presidency, the house, and the senate, all at the same time. The filibuster makes it so even if you do that you can't wield power, you have to have a massive blowout the likes of which you see once every generation or so. Then you get two years to fix all the country's problems until it returns to another few decades of stagnation. This is not a functioning government model.

If the voters elect you to enact your agenda, our system should allow you to enact your agenda so then the voters can effectively judge it. Period.

The other problem is that Republican voters really seem to believe that there is at least a strong potential for election fraud. Whether it's true is slightly less important right now than that half the country believes it, and will be livid if a bill passed by one party without a large majority leads to (or appears to lead to) that party winning a lot of votes.

It seems like there should actually be a lot of common ground here. Both sides of the people are worried about elections not reflecting the will of the people. Faux News claims that mail-in voting will lead to fraud. OK, let's leave that alone. Making election day a federal holiday shouldn't be contentious. The Georgia election law expands early voting, so that shouldn't be contentious either (in a perfectly logical world).

My question now is whether Democrats can craft a voting reform law that Republican politicians can't weasel out of without looking bad.

This basically highlights the problem - we've given up on actual governance in the hopes that shame will somehow convince political opponents to vote for something they oppose. It won't!

The filibuster should be abolished in its entirety. There is a reason why in the many, many democracies that have been formed since the US was founded essentially ZERO include some sort of filibuster mechanism. The entire rest of the world knows it's a bad idea.

 

[fskimospy]

They did. The Republicans look bad, very, very bad. But Republicans don't care how they look. They just want power out of proportion to their ability to draw voters.

Exactly, they have no reason to care if they look bad. So long as they can keep the Democrats from gaining 60 senate seats (nearly impossible in today's climate) then they can stop essentially all non-spending legislation from going forward, forever.

 

[ivwshane]

The reality is that with or without the filibuster, you still end up with the possibility of neither side compromising or working with the other.

The difference between having a filibuster or not is that without the filibuster the possibility of getting legislation passed is a possibility and the affects of that legislation at least give voters something to consider when voting again. As it stands now we vote for tribal reasons.

I’d rather have action and a reaction to the consequences of those actions then inaction and no issues ever being addressed. Inaction is just my tax dollars being wasted to pay people to do nothing.

 

[Brainonska511]

The reality is that with or without the filibuster, you still end up with the possibility of neither side compromising or working with the other.

The difference between having a filibuster or not is that without the filibuster the possibility of getting legislation passed is a possibility and the affects of that legislation at least give voters something to consider when voting again. As it stands now we vote for tribal reasons.

I’d rather have action and a reaction to the consequences of those actions then inaction and no issues ever being addressed. Inaction is just my tax dollars being wasted to pay people to do nothing.

Without the filibuster, select Republican senators might be more mercenary and actually try to work with the majority to put their own stamp on something. As it stands, the 60 vote threshold ensures that none will cross the aisle, since at least 10 would have to go along for the ride.