Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I don't hate anyone. I just disagree

---

I think you missed the question:

What is the mindset of MAGA? Can you share?

I feel like it is one of those bogeymen that you can use as a strawman but really cannot define.

BTW - so you can disagree with someone and it does not mean you "hate" them? Interesting ...

---

I will take a shot...


My issue with MAGA Democrats is that their actions seem to reflect:

1 - the "ends justifies the means",
2 - might makes right, and teamed with
3 - an Authoritarian approach, they can do what they want no checks, no balances

That is what bothers me, just watch Bannon and listen to Stephen Miller or Pam Bondi any of them.

---

FIFY

Democrats call anyone who disagrees with them fascists, enemies of democracy, etc.....

---

Yawn...

Do away with the Filibuster. Kill ACA. Follow Trump's lead on killing all Govt assistance. Pack the Court. See how that works out for the GOP.

Trump demands voting changes hours after major Democratic wins - Newsweek

Yeah, doesn't fit MAGA. Better warm up, gonna need it for gymnastics you are going to have to do to make this stuff kosher for the average American.

---

It's not unreasonable to propose killing the filibuster now, given that a super-majority of Dems are demanding it. Would be a pre-emptive move.

It's not unreasonable to propose killing the ACA, given that it is an utter failure, i.e. it takes subsidies of several thousand dollars PER PERSON to keep it alive. You pose elsewhere as a deficit hawk, so how can you suport the ACA?

It's not unreasonable to follow law on SNAP payments during a shutdown, to include not providing funds to illegal aliens. It's the Dems who've played fast & loose on this (and so many more) issue.

It's not unreasonable to talk about packing SCOTUS as long as Democrats support doing it and half-assed tried to do it last go around.

I'm not on bord for most of that, but I can at least see they are important questions of the day. You would too, if you'c come join us in the real world.

---

I agree. None of it is unreasonable. IF there are replacements for the people to actually do better. But, there isn't. It is crickets, except how bad things are and we are going to make them either more expensive or kill em. So, it is back to the ER for healthcare. That is not an answer, not matter how reasonable you think it is. It is a loser.

Killing the Filibuster would be a disaster. It would open the flood gates to packing the courts, huge swings in policy, and take away any check or balance. It is a horrible short sighted "solution"

---

the point is, Dems threatened to do it under Biden, and are threatening to do it again at first opportunity. Yes, threats are sometimes just pandering. But if you pander long enough and hard enough, you find boys showering with girls in public schools, conservatives being shot for daring to be debate with progressives, and Marxists winning elections in NYC. At. Some. Point. a party has to attend to the expectations of its base. It'd be very wise to take them at their word. As Elwood Blues would say, they're on a mission from God.

Under this plan laid out by Carville -- After they pack the Supreme Court and add 2 new states and 4 new Democrat Senators -- they will pass mass amnesty and citizenship for all 30 million Illegal Aliens.

We have to end the Filibuster rule now.pic.twitter.com/AYilWBxwPB

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) November 10, 2025

---

I get it. They already went nuclear once in the Senate.

So far, there does not seem to be an appetite on either side to do it. IMO, the Filibuster is one of the last things keeping us from being a Banana Republic.

We do agree on their mission. GOP has a choice. Do they keep beating the down with clubs or offer an alternative. At least in Florida, the alternative is winning. Areas that have been blue for decades have gone red in South Florida. The Healthcare issue is going to be the new abortion if the GOP doesn't come up with something. Lectures aren't going to do it.

There will have to be some move to a tiered approach of mixed open to taxpayers and pay for premium service. Maybe not socialized, but similar to SS or Medicare for families. It is getting bad, we have too many not getting medical care when it can be inexpensive to treat and then showing up in the ER with full blown disease. It is just good politics to have an alternative before killing an existing program, even a bad program.

---

not sure your assessment about Dem appetite is correct. I recently saw (but did not retain link to) a collage photo of all the social media posts by Dem Senators calling to end the filibuster. They're approaching, if not beyond, a majority of their caucus. And their political base is united behind the idea.

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

The democrats don't need the republicans to get rid of the filibuster to pass stuff when they get power the next time. Once they have power they can get rid of the filibuster without the republicans.

The current wave of rapturous glee over Mamdani’s victory moving through certain circles of NYC brings to mind one of Tom Wolfe’s finest lines. pic.twitter.com/eEvumjjKlC

— Zarathustra (@zarathustra5150) November 17, 2025

I thought that the filibuster was racist. Why are we protecting a racist relic from our racist past?

GrowlTowel said:

---

I thought that the filibuster was racist. Why are we protecting a racist relic from our racist past?

---

the filibuster is a tool. the Senate is supposed to be where laws go to cool off and be discussed. the Senate is not supposed to be a quick knee jerk turnaround.filibuster is a tool to slow things down and give the opposing view a chance to give their position before becoming law. Senate is to make sure we dont have one Executive totally change the Nation.

Neil Gorsuch has a very good book "Republic, if you can keep it", the first 3 ot 4 chapters olare on this subject. Also Ken Burns is coming out with a documentary on thr American Revolution that seems really opportune on these subjects.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's not unreasonable to propose killing the filibuster now, given that a super-majority of Dems are demanding it. Would be a pre-emptive move.

It's not unreasonable to propose killing the ACA, given that it is an utter failure, i.e. it takes subsidies of several thousand dollars PER PERSON to keep it alive. You pose elsewhere as a deficit hawk, so how can you suport the ACA?

It's not unreasonable to follow law on SNAP payments during a shutdown, to include not providing funds to illegal aliens. It's the Dems who've played fast & loose on this (and so many more) issue.

It's not unreasonable to talk about packing SCOTUS as long as Democrats support doing it and half-assed tried to do it last go around.

I'm not on bord for most of that, but I can at least see they are important questions of the day. You would too, if you'c come join us in the real world.

---

I agree. None of it is unreasonable. IF there are replacements for the people to actually do better. But, there isn't. It is crickets, except how bad things are and we are going to make them either more expensive or kill em. So, it is back to the ER for healthcare. That is not an answer, not matter how reasonable you think it is. It is a loser.

Killing the Filibuster would be a disaster. It would open the flood gates to packing the courts, huge swings in policy, and take away any check or balance. It is a horrible short sighted "solution"

---

the point is, Dems threatened to do it under Biden, and are threatening to do it again at first opportunity. Yes, threats are sometimes just pandering. But if you pander long enough and hard enough, you find boys showering with girls in public schools, conservatives being shot for daring to be debate with progressives, and Marxists winning elections in NYC. At. Some. Point. a party has to attend to the expectations of its base. It'd be very wise to take them at their word. As Elwood Blues would say, they're on a mission from God.

---

I get it. They already went nuclear once in the Senate.

So far, there does not seem to be an appetite on either side to do it. IMO, the Filibuster is one of the last things keeping us from being a Banana Republic.

We do agree on their mission. GOP has a choice. Do they keep beating the down with clubs or offer an alternative. At least in Florida, the alternative is winning. Areas that have been blue for decades have gone red in South Florida. The Healthcare issue is going to be the new abortion if the GOP doesn't come up with something. Lectures aren't going to do it.

There will have to be some move to a tiered approach of mixed open to taxpayers and pay for premium service. Maybe not socialized, but similar to SS or Medicare for families. It is getting bad, we have too many not getting medical care when it can be inexpensive to treat and then showing up in the ER with full blown disease. It is just good politics to have an alternative before killing an existing program, even a bad program.

---

not sure your assessment about Dem appetite is correct. I recently saw (but did not retain link to) a collage photo of all the social media posts by Dem Senators calling to end the filibuster. They're approaching, if not beyond, a majority of their caucus. And their political base is united behind the idea.

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's not unreasonable to propose killing the filibuster now, given that a super-majority of Dems are demanding it. Would be a pre-emptive move.

It's not unreasonable to propose killing the ACA, given that it is an utter failure, i.e. it takes subsidies of several thousand dollars PER PERSON to keep it alive. You pose elsewhere as a deficit hawk, so how can you suport the ACA?

It's not unreasonable to follow law on SNAP payments during a shutdown, to include not providing funds to illegal aliens. It's the Dems who've played fast & loose on this (and so many more) issue.

It's not unreasonable to talk about packing SCOTUS as long as Democrats support doing it and half-assed tried to do it last go around.

I'm not on bord for most of that, but I can at least see they are important questions of the day. You would too, if you'c come join us in the real world.

---

I agree. None of it is unreasonable. IF there are replacements for the people to actually do better. But, there isn't. It is crickets, except how bad things are and we are going to make them either more expensive or kill em. So, it is back to the ER for healthcare. That is not an answer, not matter how reasonable you think it is. It is a loser.

Killing the Filibuster would be a disaster. It would open the flood gates to packing the courts, huge swings in policy, and take away any check or balance. It is a horrible short sighted "solution"

---

the point is, Dems threatened to do it under Biden, and are threatening to do it again at first opportunity. Yes, threats are sometimes just pandering. But if you pander long enough and hard enough, you find boys showering with girls in public schools, conservatives being shot for daring to be debate with progressives, and Marxists winning elections in NYC. At. Some. Point. a party has to attend to the expectations of its base. It'd be very wise to take them at their word. As Elwood Blues would say, they're on a mission from God.

---

I get it. They already went nuclear once in the Senate.

So far, there does not seem to be an appetite on either side to do it. IMO, the Filibuster is one of the last things keeping us from being a Banana Republic.

We do agree on their mission. GOP has a choice. Do they keep beating the down with clubs or offer an alternative. At least in Florida, the alternative is winning. Areas that have been blue for decades have gone red in South Florida. The Healthcare issue is going to be the new abortion if the GOP doesn't come up with something. Lectures aren't going to do it.

There will have to be some move to a tiered approach of mixed open to taxpayers and pay for premium service. Maybe not socialized, but similar to SS or Medicare for families. It is getting bad, we have too many not getting medical care when it can be inexpensive to treat and then showing up in the ER with full blown disease. It is just good politics to have an alternative before killing an existing program, even a bad program.

---

not sure your assessment about Dem appetite is correct. I recently saw (but did not retain link to) a collage photo of all the social media posts by Dem Senators calling to end the filibuster. They're approaching, if not beyond, a majority of their caucus. And their political base is united behind the idea.

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

whiterock said:

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

100% this. The next generation of Democrats aren't the Newsom/Schumer/Pelosi style of grifter. They are communist revolutionaries and part of an international red-green alliance. They absolutely will get rid of the filibuster to permanently transform the nation.

We are in a cultural war that we have anywhere between 14 months and 38 months to win. Accelerate the Reconquista or lose the nation forever.

Congressional - specifically in the Senate - Republicans are not cooperating in delivering this victory.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Trump packed the New York courts?

There are no judges besides Trump appointments?

Get serious.

---

NY State courts? What are you talking about?

This site should help you, for better and worse. There has been an uptick with both Trump and Biden. We need to get out of this polarizing period. It is turning everything into a pissing contest.

Data Visualization | Judicial Appointments Tracker | The Heritage Foundation

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I thought that the filibuster was racist. Why are we protecting a racist relic from our racist past?

---

the filibuster is a tool. the Senate is supposed to be where laws go to cool off and be discussed. the Senate is not supposed to be a quick knee jerk turnaround.filibuster is a tool to slow things down and give the opposing view a chance to give their position before becoming law. Senate is to make sure we dont have one Executive totally change the Nation.

Neil Gorsuch has a very good book "Republic, if you can keep it", the first 3 ot 4 chapters olare on this subject. Also Ken Burns is coming out with a documentary on thr American Revolution that seems really opportune on these subjects.

---

Your sarcasm meter is off. The racist bit was a democrat talking point during Biden's term.

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I thought that the filibuster was racist. Why are we protecting a racist relic from our racist past?

---

the filibuster is a tool. the Senate is supposed to be where laws go to cool off and be discussed. the Senate is not supposed to be a quick knee jerk turnaround.filibuster is a tool to slow things down and give the opposing view a chance to give their position before becoming law. Senate is to make sure we dont have one Executive totally change the Nation.

Neil Gorsuch has a very good book "Republic, if you can keep it", the first 3 ot 4 chapters olare on this subject. Also Ken Burns is coming out with a documentary on thr American Revolution that seems really opportune on these subjects.

---

Your sarcasm meter is off. The racist bit was a democrat talking point during Biden's term.

---

I wasn't being sarcastic, the book does go into that. As did an interview with Ken Burns on the American Revolution I listened to on CSPAN about the formation of the Congress.

I actually thought it was a decent point you made and some have argued it is a remanent of Jim Crow.

My Masters is in Public Policy and City Management, so I actually find this conversation interesting. As disgustingly sick as that is and a big reason I post here. It has these conversations, no one else cares.

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I thought that the filibuster was racist. Why are we protecting a racist relic from our racist past?

---

the filibuster is a tool. the Senate is supposed to be where laws go to cool off and be discussed. the Senate is not supposed to be a quick knee jerk turnaround.filibuster is a tool to slow things down and give the opposing view a chance to give their position before becoming law. Senate is to make sure we dont have one Executive totally change the Nation.

Neil Gorsuch has a very good book "Republic, if you can keep it", the first 3 ot 4 chapters olare on this subject. Also Ken Burns is coming out with a documentary on thr American Revolution that seems really opportune on these subjects.

---

Your sarcasm meter is off. The racist bit was a democrat talking point during Biden's term.

---

I wasn't being sarcastic, the book does go into that. As did an interview with Ken Burns on the American Revolution I listened to on CSPAN about the formation of the Congress.

I actually thought it was a decent point you made and some have argued it is a remanent of Jim Crow.

My Masters is in Public Policy and City Management, so I actually find this conversation interesting. As disgustingly sick as that is and a big reason I post here. It has these conversations, no one else cares.

---

And they are incorrect on that point.

It was around long before Jim Crow. (Jim Crow laws started to take effect in the 1880s, but became more systematically enforced across the South beginning in the 1890s).

[The Senate filibuster originated from an 1806 rule change that eliminated the ability of a simple majority to end debate, and it evolved from this point. The first recorded filibuster to block a vote was in 1837, and the term "filibuster" was first used in the 1850s to describe the tactic of using extended debate to delay or block legislation. In response to obstruction, the Senate adopted the cloture rule in 1917, requiring a two-thirds vote to end debate, which was later lowered to three-fifths (60 votes) in 1975]

FLBear5630 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The new fight for progressives is not whether it is not the right but rather the top, the oligarchy, Big Corporations. That is our fight. The working, small business, and middle class are tired of all the money flowing to the top in a system rigged by big money in politics to send it to the top. Look at the group at the WH today - oligarchs making policy over which we, the people, have no control that hurts wages, education, and healthcare.

---

Corporate oligarchs have made their largest gains using big government to destroy their competition.

---

No argument from me. You are right

---

Yeah but democrats promising to use big government to end crony capitalism have and will continue to pull the rug out from under everyone and work in favor of the corporations and against the people.

This is what they did with the ACA. They will lie and pretend its good when its actually racketeering.

---

Say more about how Big Government will be used to end crony capitalism?

---

Did you not understand?

Big government will perpetuate crony capitalism.How do you see that process? Campaigning tool? Full of hot air?

---

---

How is that different than right now? Crony Capitalism? This is just as bad as Biden in that request and Trump's handpicked people are controlling and cancelling contracts. Some of those making decisions are getting those contracts and cutting their competition or oversight agencies. This isn't Crony Capitalism????I agree. Crony Capitalism is sinking the middle and working class.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I thought that the filibuster was racist. Why are we protecting a racist relic from our racist past?

---

the filibuster is a tool. the Senate is supposed to be where laws go to cool off and be discussed. the Senate is not supposed to be a quick knee jerk turnaround.filibuster is a tool to slow things down and give the opposing view a chance to give their position before becoming law. Senate is to make sure we dont have one Executive totally change the Nation.

Neil Gorsuch has a very good book "Republic, if you can keep it", the first 3 ot 4 chapters olare on this subject. Also Ken Burns is coming out with a documentary on thr American Revolution that seems really opportune on these subjects.

---

Your sarcasm meter is off. The racist bit was a democrat talking point during Biden's term.

---

I wasn't being sarcastic, the book does go into that. As did an interview with Ken Burns on the American Revolution I listened to on CSPAN about the formation of the Congress.

I actually thought it was a decent point you made and some have argued it is a remanent of Jim Crow.

My Masters is in Public Policy and City Management, so I actually find this conversation interesting. As disgustingly sick as that is and a big reason I post here. It has these conversations, no one else cares.

---

And they are incorrect on that point.

It was around long before Jim Crow. (Jim Crow laws started to take effect in the 1880s, but became more systematically enforced across the South beginning in the 1890s).

[The Senate filibuster originated from an 1806 rule change that eliminated the ability of a simple majority to end debate, and it evolved from this point. The first recorded filibuster to block a vote was in 1837, and the term "filibuster" was first used in the 1850s to describe the tactic of using extended debate to delay or block legislation. In response to obstruction, the Senate adopted the cloture rule in 1917, requiring a two-thirds vote to end debate, which was later lowered to three-fifths (60 votes) in 1975]

---

And don't forget the Harry Reid nuclear option of 2013.

Both of the changes to cloture have occurred under democrat party leadership.

The cloture rule itself was put in under pressure by President Wilson to try to move legislation through.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

I thought that the filibuster was racist. Why are we protecting a racist relic from our racist past?

---

the filibuster is a tool. the Senate is supposed to be where laws go to cool off and be discussed. the Senate is not supposed to be a quick knee jerk turnaround.filibuster is a tool to slow things down and give the opposing view a chance to give their position before becoming law. Senate is to make sure we dont have one Executive totally change the Nation.

Neil Gorsuch has a very good book "Republic, if you can keep it", the first 3 ot 4 chapters olare on this subject. Also Ken Burns is coming out with a documentary on thr American Revolution that seems really opportune on these subjects.

---

Your sarcasm meter is off. The racist bit was a democrat talking point during Biden's term.

---

I wasn't being sarcastic, the book does go into that. As did an interview with Ken Burns on the American Revolution I listened to on CSPAN about the formation of the Congress.

I actually thought it was a decent point you made and some have argued it is a remanent of Jim Crow.

My Masters is in Public Policy and City Management, so I actually find this conversation interesting. As disgustingly sick as that is and a big reason I post here. It has these conversations, no one else cares.

---

And they are incorrect on that point.

It was around long before Jim Crow. (Jim Crow laws started to take effect in the 1880s, but became more systematically enforced across the South beginning in the 1890s).

[The Senate filibuster originated from an 1806 rule change that eliminated the ability of a simple majority to end debate, and it evolved from this point. The first recorded filibuster to block a vote was in 1837, and the term "filibuster" was first used in the 1850s to describe the tactic of using extended debate to delay or block legislation. In response to obstruction, the Senate adopted the cloture rule in 1917, requiring a two-thirds vote to end debate, which was later lowered to three-fifths (60 votes) in 1975]

---

And don't forget the Harry Reid nuclear option of 2013.

Both of the changes to cloture have occurred under democrat party leadership.

The cloture rule itself was put in under pressure by President Wilson to try to move legislation through.

---

Democrats believe the Reid gambit was a disaster because it resulted in the most conservative S Court in 100 years
If Republicans do it it will be a disaster in the long run

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???

You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...

Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???

You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...

Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.

---

One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???

You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...

Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.

---

One example today - they're daily. Democrats care only about power not norms.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-urge-military-members-refuse-illegal-orders-viral-video-hegseth-responds

---

You do realize that the UCMJ requires only to follow not to follow an illegal order. You cannot give an order against civilians, falsifying documents, or anything illegal for civilians. Following orders is not a defense that will hold up in court-martial. They should be talking to the JAG Office on post. Every posting has a JAG office that has a Criminal Defense unit committed to protecting the soldier.

They are stating the obvious and everyone hears it in Basic Training. There is nothing new in that video.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???

You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...

Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.

---

You are ranting incoherently.

The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?

Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.

Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.

That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Trying to tie those two together, huh? You keep saying how the Dems broke all sorts of norms, illegal activity, tweaked the rules of the game, gamed the system for prosecutional discretion. You have no credibility on ANY of that because not one case has held up in court. Comey is the latest example of the Dems and I will throw in Deep State not having legs as Trump's team screwed up the case. You keep saying how illegal everything is, yet nothing has held up... Please name one item that has held up in court???

You mix various areas, throw in a bunch of generalized statements and then pick and choose how to respond. Get it...

Now, the filibuster. There is no gaming the filibuster. Either the Senate does away with it or not, it is a Senate rule as you know. Senate has changed procedures numerous times. So, if it is done away with it is like other changes since 1789, but like the others there are unintended consequences. Reid never thought his changes would result in the most Conservative Supreme Court ever, it was an unintended consequence. I say don't do away with it because of the potential to allow for vicious swings in US law and the Senate is supposed to be the place to calm down law and reach compromise, not expeditiously move items like the House. There is nothing illegal in changing the Senate rules.

---

You are ranting incoherently.

The argument for this GOP senate to end the filibuster is premised on the conclusion that the Dems are going to do it the first time they get the chance. Reasonable people can disagree on that conclusion, but it's hardly unreasonable to conclude they will do it (given their rhetoric, their track record, and the support they've built for it in their base). Also relevant in the calculus is their very poor track record of playing by the rules, from Russia Hoax all the way to the federal lawfare against Trump, all of it based on what all the players clearly new was fraudulent evidence. How can we expect them to honor bi-partisan traditions like the filibuster when they so wildly abuse institutions against their political opponents?

Once one concludes there are very low odds of Democrats continuing the filibuster, then it becomes imperative to go ahead and it it yourself in order to get as much of your agenda thru as possible. Yes, in such a scenario the Dems will indeed try to undo much/all of it. But that is the point. Make them spend time and political capital chipping away at a mountains of your stuff before being able to work on implementing theirs.

Obamacare is instructive. Dems strained and scratched and clawed to get it passed without a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress. It was a bad idea, poorly done. And here we sit, 15 years later, staring at its failure. And Democrats bear no responsibility for it at all. We are saddled with the responsibility for cleaning up the mess. They got what they wanted, and we have to make it work.

That's the way the game plays out, friend. When in power, the Democrats WILL pass their wildest dreams into law. If we do not do the same when we are in power, then all we will ever do is argue about how to clean up enough of their messes to get us a little further down the road.

---

Then, don't start bringing in all the "criminal, stolen election", and other crap that has not stood up in court. Your rant on all that, see below (definition of incoherent rant)

"Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc....."


If you want to talk power politics, fine. Yes, elections have consequences. They Dems are finding that out right now. Can Trump get the Filibuster removed, I would say probably. But, it would not be a party line vote... Should the GOP do away with it? I say "No" and use the last time the nuclear option was used by Reid. It did not turn out like he or the Dems expected. It actually backfired on the Dems. We do not know what is coming and removing a safety net if the GOP is in the minority party??

Let's say what you are proposing is true. The Dems win enough to remove the Filibuster. That would mean they will have a majority. If they do have a majority, with NO Filibuster. GOP is screwed. You will see a swing in the mid-terms and all bets are off for 28. I think the risk is too high of the GOP being in Reid's shoes.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

What did Comey do? He got Trump elected in 2016 by reopening Hillary's email case.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

---

The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.

If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.

Nope.

Comey gave Hillary a lifeline by not prosecuting her.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

---

The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.

If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.

---

The Constitution clearly gives them the ability to set their rules.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

---

The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.

If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.

---

The Constitution clearly gives them the ability to set their rules.

---

If it is so clear, provide a direct quote.

Speaking of the filibuster, it should be done the old way. Where they had to tie up the floor and not use the restroom. Its too easy today to do a filibuster.

Waco1947 said:

---

What did Comey do? He got Trump elected in 2016 by reopening Hillary's email case.

---

"God moves in a mysterious way His wonders to perform." William Cowper

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

---

The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.

If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.

---

The Constitution clearly gives them the ability to set their rules.

---

If it is so clear, provide a direct quote.

---

Article 1, Section 5.2

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

---

The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.

If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.

---

The Constitution clearly gives them the ability to set their rules.

---

If it is so clear, provide a direct quote.

---

Article 1, Section 5.2

---

And SCOTUS has already opined that rule making authority under that Section cannot violate constitutional restrictions…..and is subject to judicial review.

US v Ballin, 144 US 1 (1892). "The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be obtained".

express judicial review of Section 5.2 rule making……oops
standard given for overturning a rule……..oops

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

---

The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.

If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.

---

The Constitution clearly gives them the ability to set their rules.

---

If it is so clear, provide a direct quote.

---

Article 1, Section 5.2

---

And SCOTUS has already opined that rule making authority under that Section cannot violate constitutional restrictions…..and is subject to judicial review.

US v Ballin, 144 US 1 (1892). "The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be obtained".

express judicial review of Section 5.2 rule making……oops
standard given for overturning a rule……..oops

---

Yeah, since it has held since 1892. Court just can't wait to overturn???? Also, It was about a quorum. And they held that both Houses of Congress can set their own rules as stipulated in the Constitution

Not sure where you are going with a case from 1892 that upholds Congress's ability to set their own rules. As proof that they are going to overrule the filibuster, which is a rule set by the Senate. I would BET that SCOTUS does not touch this one.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

---

The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.

If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.

---

The Constitution clearly gives them the ability to set their rules.

---

If it is so clear, provide a direct quote.

---

Article 1, Section 5.2

---

And SCOTUS has already opined that rule making authority under that Section cannot violate constitutional restrictions…..and is subject to judicial review.

US v Ballin, 144 US 1 (1892). "The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be obtained".

express judicial review of Section 5.2 rule making……oops
standard given for overturning a rule……..oops

---

Yeah, since it has held since 1892. Court just can't wait to overturn???? Also, It was about a quorum. And they held that both Houses of Congress can set their own rules as stipulated in the Constitution

Not sure where you are going with a case from 1892 that upholds Congress's ability to set their own rules. As proof that they are going to overrule the filibuster, which is a rule set by the Senate. I would BET that SCOTUS does not touch this one.

---

There you go……why not simply start with "my opinion is…." and avoid the erroneous fact starting point, proven wrong, revert to opinion.

You undermine your positions routinely by overstating things….

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

If GOP does away with the filibuster, what laws could they pass that Democrats couldn't repeal as soon as they take charge?
Keep the filibuster

---

that is the countervailing argument. But it has flaws as well - chiefly that we accomplish little, then Dems dump it and add 2 states (4 Dem Senate seats) pack the court, etc.....and rule forever.

---

If there is no filibuster the Dems can do all of that the next time they are in power. At that time they could undo (repeal ) all of the good government laws Reps may pass when/if they do away with the filibuster.

---

that is not debatable. The issue is, are they going to do it anyway? There is is a lot of evidence that they will, and not much beyond wishful thinking that they wont. At whatever point one concludes a high percentage chance they are going to do it no matter what, it becomes incumbent on us doing it first. to get our stuff done. Yes, they CAN undo it all, but that will take time and political capital. Why would we do nothing and just let them go first?......let them put all their stuff in place, requiring us to use our political capital to undo it all.

That is the question. Do you think they will do it? If not, upon what do you base that assumption?

---

Based on history, no I don't think they will do away with the filibuster. The filibuster has been around for close to 200 years.

---

The sunk cost aspect does not help your argument, but you might be right. But if you're wrong, the problem becomes existential. Dems will pack the whole system to ensure they never lose another election.

Or, we can stack up a long list of stuff that will take them a couple of years to undo, giving us a chance to stop it the mid-terms.


The weak point in my argument, of course, is that it would require Republicans to actually pass their platform into law.

---

The weak point in your argument is that you are assuming the worst possible election results and the worst post election actions, things that have never happened. Dems had 60 votes in the senate in Obama's first term. They left the filibuster alone.
If Repubs scuttle the filibuster and pass an aggressive agenda it gives the Dems cover for undoing everything in that agenda and then all of the bad stuff you fear.

Leave the filibuster alone. Repubs will need it some day.

---

Assuming Democrats leave it in place next time they own the Senate.
That is not an assumption one should accept lightly.

Dems broke all kinds of "norms" to get Trump over the last 10 years, escalating it to outright illegal activity. How can you be so sure they wouldn't "tweak the rules" to game the system? It's not like they didn't game the system on illegal immigration, leading to gaming the system on apportionment for Congress and the Electoral College. It's not like they haven't gamed the system on prosecutorial discretion. It's not like they didn't game the system with Covid. It's not like they didn't game the system with Obamacare (a couple of times), etc.....

You need to explain how you can safely presume the Dems have any respect for the filibuster at all.

---

Funny, you keep saying that. Yet, when it keeps going to the Courts it is not playing out that way. Don't tell me it is Democrat Judges, Trump has done his share of packing the Judiciary.

Now, it may be that the GOP is just bad at procedure, like Comey. He is going to walk because the GOP f-ed up the case royally. How many Dems have been prosecuted? When Nixon did Watergate, people went to jail. All we here is bluster and nothing ends up sticking even holding all three levers of power and a stacked SCOUS.

Sort of hard for you to have credibility on these issues.

---

Hate to break it to you, but the courts have no jurisdiction over Senate rules like the filibuster.

---

Bold Prediction for the Day:

If the Senate refuses to overturn the Filibuster, one day in the future SCOTUS overturns it.

Rationale: while Filibuster started as a procedural rule, it has effectively become a substantive barrier which has no basis in and directly conflicts with the Constitution. Much as Congress cannot enact statutes that violate the Constitution, it also cannot enact rules which do so. Since the Constitution does not require 60 votes to enact legislation neither can a Senate rule. The de jure procedural rule has become a de facto substantive barrier.

---

Don't count on it. IMO, the SCOTUS views the Senate as a Chamber of reason and compromise. I don't see them taking a self-imposed rule away. Article 1, Section 5 gives them that right.

---

The old "it hasn't happened to date therefor it cannot happen" argument combined with an "I can predict the opinions of a group of people whose identity I cannot predict" add-on.

If your ability to predict the future is so solid you shouldn't fret tariffs.

---

The Constitution clearly gives them the ability to set their rules.

---

If it is so clear, provide a direct quote.

---

Article 1, Section 5.2

---

And SCOTUS has already opined that rule making authority under that Section cannot violate constitutional restrictions…..and is subject to judicial review.

US v Ballin, 144 US 1 (1892). "The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be obtained".

express judicial review of Section 5.2 rule making……oops
standard given for overturning a rule……..oops

---

Yeah, since it has held since 1892. Court just can't wait to overturn???? Also, It was about a quorum. And they held that both Houses of Congress can set their own rules as stipulated in the Constitution

Not sure where you are going with a case from 1892 that upholds Congress's ability to set their own rules. As proof that they are going to overrule the filibuster, which is a rule set by the Senate. I would BET that SCOTUS does not touch this one.

---

There you go……why not simply start with "my opinion is…." and avoid the erroneous fact starting point, proven wrong, revert to opinion.

You undermine your positions routinely by overstating things….

---

Read through the post before lecturing people. You are pretty much wrong on every point. But you keep doing you.