“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

-7 points
Semafor - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Semafor:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.semafor.com/article/09/26/2024/mcconnell-democrats-would-end-the-filibuster-if-they-win-big-this-year

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
69 points

Don’t tempt me with a good time

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Exactly! End another remnant of the North placating the South to get them to sign the Constitution

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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)

permalink
report
parent
reply
95 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
177 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

I say abolish the senate. The senate is there because we can’t trust the people to fend off populism that prioritizes their whims over reasoned governance. In practice, though, senators inject their unreasoned, populist, ideas into government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

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…”

permalink
report
reply
27 points

McConnell: <awkward turtle noises>

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Imagine him croaking from exhaustion because he has to actually get up there and stand for hours on end. A man can dream…

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

He’s just do a mental freeze and his handlers will just forget to poke him every now and then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Tuning into CSPAN like people tune in to NASCAR races to see if anyone’s going to die.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If it were anyone other than him, literally dropping dead in Congress because of the passion of your speech would be one of the most based things a politician could ever do.

But with Mitch you know he’d keel over arguing about how school kids don’t actually need food.

permalink
report
parent
reply

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

It’s not enough though, we need something more, or else if the GOP ever retakes control of both houses and the presidency, it will be just as easy for them to undo the laws that get passed now.

Something more, being something like https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 429K

    Comments