Senator Sinema kills filibuster change

[Samm]

@PurpnGold

Why??

The more intelligent question is why not. Are you familiar with the history behind the Senate filibuster?

Here is a little light reading for you while you ponder the issue. Once you get through the first section you can stop.

U.S. Senate: Origins and Development

[Guvnah]

@WuWei

Have the republicans ever talked about it or tried it? I honestly don’t know.

It was why Schumer gave his speech in favor of keeping the filibuster.

[PurpnGold]

@Samm

The more intelligent question is why not. Are you familiar with the history behind the Senate filibuster?

Sure. It was heavily used to block civil rights bills.

Oh and the founders didn’t write about it.

[Samm]

@PurpnGold

@Samm

The more intelligent question is why not. Are you familiar with the history behind the Senate filibuster?

Sure. It was heavily used to block civil rights bills.

Oh and the founders didn’t write about it.

How typical of you to select a couple of issues dear to your heart rather than look at the body of work over the history of the Senate. Like any rule, there will be undesirable outcomes along with the overwhelming benefit.

The founders didn’t write about the filibuster specifically, but they clearly stated their philosophy for the function of the Senate. The filibuster is a tool to carry out that philosophy.

[Oryx]

@zantax

I didn’t say jail them for their party membership, I said jail them for specific crimes individually.

You said a Republican Senate should make the Democratic Party illegal. So in your dystopian world, party membership would be a crime.

[Oryx]

@zantax

They have proven themselves to be an existential threat to the republic, so yes.

How are they an existential threat to the republic? Racist vaccine distribution is going to end the country?

[DougBH]

You no longer need a filibuster proof majority. A voting to end the filibuster majority is sufficient.

[Oryx]

@Guvnah

Cotton won’t have to re-read it. Schumer will be back on the floor giving the speech himself. But you’re right to expect a GOP majority in the Senate to be trying it again.

Would you support a Republican Senate ending the filibuster?

[conan]

Libs wanted left-wing extremist.

[conan]

@PurpnGold

We are in the 21st century. Things move faster now. This “long and deliberate” debate reasoning is asinine.

Says the guy that wants to run headlong into totalitarianism.

[Rodeo]

@Oryx

Would you support a Republican Senate ending the filibuster?

I would not it’s there for a reason

[Rurudyne]

@Jezcoe

I do think that they should bring the talking filibuster back

Amen.

Let them talk their heads off, tell every joke they know and sing show tunes!

[Oryx]

@Rodeo

I would not it’s there for a reason

Agreed. When Republicans take back the Senate, some of them will undoubtedly want to end the filibuster, arguing that if they don’t, the Democrats will. It will be interesting to see how much support they get.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

@PAmoderate37

What are the chances of Tom Cotton rereading that speech when a future Republican President Trump wants a Republican led Senate to kill the filibuster?? If he does, I will give him major credit.

Right? There will come a time when the R’s wanna dump it, and the pendulum of hypocrisy will swing.

Have they ever?

Well yeah, but only for judges

[Oryx]

@Rurudyne

@Jezcoe

I do think that they should bring the talking filibuster back

Amen.

Let them talk their heads off, tell every joke they know and sing show tunes!

They could recite the enormous bills they sign but never actually read.

[Rurudyne]

I would support that. Within a hundred or so pages they might manage bore themselves to death by reading legalese out loud.

[WuWei]

@Oryx

@Rurudyne

@Jezcoe

I do think that they should bring the talking filibuster back

Amen.

Let them talk their heads off, tell every joke they know and sing show tunes!

They could recite the enormous bills they sign but never actually read.

Great idea!

[gooddad409]

@e7alr

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

3 cheers for Sinema. She and Manchin may save the Republic yet.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

They have proven themselves to be an existential threat to the republic, so yes. Same way it used to be illegal to be a member of the communist party.

Amazing.

And I bet you think we’re the authoritarians.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

They have proven themselves to be an existential threat to the republic, so yes. Same way it used to be illegal to be a member of the communist party.

Amazing.

And I bet you think we’re the authoritarians.

The best part is the utter obliviousness to the contradiction.