“They’re all committed to it now, because Chuck has made them take a public position. Every Democratic challenger, I’m told, running for the Senate is taking the same position,” McConnell said. “I think they fully intend to do it if they can.”

Thanks for advocating for a good reason to have democratic control of the senate

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The issue with the filibuster,now, is that it’s too easy. It needs to be hard like the old days.

    Ironically, because it’s so easy we actually don’t even see filibusters often anymore. It’s usually the threat of a filibuster that stops legislation in its tracks. If it was harder, where you stood for days, then it might not actually stop legislation. At least it would be brought to force the issue.

    You should have to earn it.

    I’m sure the geriatric core of our Congress will thrilled to have to stand for hours to prove their points.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The real problem with the filibuster, in my opinion, is it shields senators from taking a public position. The most extreme senator from Idaho can filibuster the “feed the children” act which prevents a senator from Georgia from having to vote no.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I respectfully disagree for the reason you stated at the end. Grueling filibusters are ableist - they’re unfair to representatives with disabilities and their constituents.

      Congress is not convincing each other of anything. They can make their point concisely for the C-SPAN viewers. Filibusters are a complete waste of time.

      Say goodbye to the next FDR if you demand standing.

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        41 minutes ago

        You aren’t wrong but…

        Can you imagine the spectacle of an ancient senator literally taking a stand for something he/she believes in?

        That’d be pretty powerful.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Republicans are just waiting for the opportunity to do it themselves. They literally do not care. They just like the idea of the democrats doing it so they can sqwak about decorum.

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Sounds good to me. Also add DC and Puerto Rico as states and then we will never see another Republican in the white house again.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 hours ago

    “Oh no! Where will the practice of avoiding doing our job while getting paid for filling it with nonsense go? We totally need this desperate tactic, not addressing or facing the issues that force us to use it!”

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Just once, I wish the Dem leadership would be anywhere near as based as Republican demagogues always pretend they are 😮‍💨

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Pleeeease, don’t threaten us with a good time.

    Seriously, we don’t need a extra layer of inaction on top of a government already designed to move slowly. That’s the whole point of having three branches of government, you already have to compromise even without the filibuster unless you sweep (and at this point a sweep is well deserved!).

    Although I guess I’m ok with the talking version. It’d be fun to watch those old assholes suffer an all nighter speaking non stop. Wouldn’t ever pull it off.

  • PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    155
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Ok, sounds great. Require an actual speaking filibuster if desired. No more procedural bullshit that enabled McConnell to appoint dozens of judges when Schumer foolishly agreed to kill the judicial filibuster.

    Flip the House, hold the Senate and dump the obstructionist tool. Also the filibuster.

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I don’t always side with either Republicans or Democrats. I just want good government. And I am 100% in favor of repealing the procedural filibuster. I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation, but it should not exist as a way to make sure any and every contentious legislation requires 60 votes.

      If someone feels that strongly about something, let them get up there and read the phone book into the record for six hours.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I think the filibuster is a valuable tool that is important for defeating certain bad legislation

        What might be bad for you might be good for someone else.

        I agree with getting rid of the procedural filibuster. I suspect the reason it exists in the first place is because Senators are getting old and don’t want to actually do it.

        So, for good and bad, make them actually stand and deliver. If they feel so strongly that a bill needs to be killed, then let them fucking earn it.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It was supposedly created in the 70s because Senators were gumming up Senate business trying to grandstans for the TV using filibusters.

          Personally, I think that’s not a bad thing. Make Senators want to stand on a podium and give an impassioned speech about their beliefs, like they did in Athens.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 hours ago

      That would be more in line with the actual American tradition.

      But personally, I would recommend to only allow filibusters in the House, which has a more proportional representation, and to not allow it in the Senate, which has the least proportional representation, even less than the electoral college.

  • archonet
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    12 hours ago

    God, wouldn’t that be amazing? Things actually getting done instead of our legislators sitting with their thumb up their asses.

    Well, less of them sitting with their thumb up their asses.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      New rule. Every politician needs a heat signature based gps monitored butt plug inside them at all times.

      That way their thumbs are always free.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      It worked both ways though. But in the end, did it actually do much? The times I remember when fill buster was used ultimately the majority still managed to pass the legislation.

      I think what would be better is that when there’s a stalemate it would trigger a new election like it is done in some countries.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The times I remember when fill buster was used ultimately the majority still managed to pass the legislation.

        That’s because if you know the opposition is serious about blocking a bill via filibuster, you won’t propose it because it doesn’t have enough support.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I would hope so, or at the very least go back to ye olden days of “You want a filibuster? Get your ass up there and hold the floor…”

    • This.

      I think people tend to think about doing things while they’re in control that fuck the other party, often forgetting that - at some point - power is going to flip and they’ll be the underdogs. That said, Republicans tend to abuse these procedural instruments more.

      But you have the right answer: the filibuster can be useful, if it’s not easy to use and requires true dedication. Right now, it’s just a spike strip (mostly) conservatives throw down whenever they want to throw a tantrum.

    • JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Don’t worry, he’ll go down in history as “The hypocrite who screwed over Barrack Obama and Merrick Garland, and set the country back decades in social justice.”

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 hours ago

        There’s nothing in the constitution about the filibuster. It’s just a Senate rule and the current version (where you don’t have to make long speeches in an ultimately doomed attempt to block legislation with majority support) dates to the 1970’s. They adopted it because in the TV era, Senators were filibustering just to get on the national news and make a name for themselves.

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It’s just tradition at this point. And tradition is just peer pressure from dead people.

          Also: we know Republicans don’t give a single flying fuck about tradition when the shoe is on the other foot and it’s getting in the way of their power grabs. The Supreme Court would be very different if they actually cared about respecting traditions in government (amongst many other things)