Senator Sinema kills filibuster change

Senator Sinema flatly refused to support changing Senate rules. She state that her position not changing and said the following:

“There’s no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. There’s no need for me to restate its role in protecting our country from wild reversals of federal policy,” Sinema, D-Ariz., said. “This week’s harried discussions about Senate rules are but a poor substitute for what I believe could have and should have been a thoughtful public debate at any time over the past year.”

Also from the article:

She added: “But what is the legislative filibuster, other than a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators, representing the broader cross-section of Americans… Demands to eliminate this threshold from whichever party holds the fleeting majority amount to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon, shouting that solution to their colleagues.”

Sinema doubles down on filibuster support, dealing likely fatal blow to Dems’ election bills


I agree with this, I think killing the filibuster would be a terrible idea


i agree with her.

I do think that they should bring the talking filibuster back

Make them work for it.


Nah. Stupid rule, for stupid reasons.

Then we’ll have to start drug testing the performer for amphetamine.


But I bet you voted for people who think it’s a great idea.


Good for her, let’s keep the filibuster.


I am more impressed with her certain reasoning and lack of willingness to compromise on this issue.

1 Like

After listening to her speech, I sure wish Biden had chosen her as his VP.


Welp, that’s the ballgame. The Biden administration is paralyzed for the duration


I used to be against it when I was younger but now I feel that 51 votes or 50 + VP is not enough to be able to pass major legislation.

Why is 60 better? It’s all arbitrary once you get past 51

I guess I’d be ok to debate changing from 60 to something else.

Just remember, the shoe will be on the other foot eventually. F.e. Republicans were able to ram through the Amy Coney Barrett without needing a supermajority partially due to Harry Reid.

1 Like

You don’t see much in the media about Schumer’s flip-flop on killing the filibuster. It wasn’t long ago (when Dems were in the minority) that Schumer said that ending the filibuster would be the end of the Republic.

GOP Senators have been reading his past statements on the Senate floor. But do we see the media getting upset about Schumer’s forked-tongue politics? Hardly.

Bet money. When GOP regains power, and if they again try to trash the filibuster, the media will be wetting their pants while pumping all feeds with past statements from this current go-round on the issue.


So legislation doesn’t swing back and forth like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

1 Like

Agreed. These days, it is just pro forma.

If you watch her speech, she lays it out pretty clearly.

1 Like

Two party system

Passing laws that take or force should be difficult.