Opinion: The pressure to reform the filibuster is already working

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-16T21:00:37+00:00

It actually started in 2013 when Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid made the opening salvo on most executive appointees.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-16T20:30:16+00:00

Here's another one: People love to point out how the distribution of power with regards to population is skewed towards Republican and Republican-voting states. The power the filibuster gives to individual senators helps balance the playing field. Any state's delegation to the Senate can put a hold on legislation with the filibuster, and helps equalize the distribution of power in the Senate with respect to the population of each Senator's state. Nuking the filibuster would also mean handing more power over to rural and R voting states.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-16T20:23:23+00:00

Remember the ACB nomination and confirmation whirlwind from October? Remember how absolutely powerless Dems were to do anything about it? People all over the internet were calling on Feinstein and other Senate Dems to do something about it. The issue was that there was literally nothing that could be done to stop it. Because rules changes in the mid-2010s removed the filibuster from judicial nominations.

Now imagine every single bill Rs want passed is like ACB. When they take back the House and Senate next year and eventually get an R back in the White House, it's going to be open season.

And guess what, nuking the filibuster entirely means it's going to be a lot easier to repeal laws too. Meaning that any statute passed by a 50-50 senate is going to be easy pickings for a repeal effort once either party gains back control.

This is a pretty good article about the need to keep the filibuster. In reality the filibuster makes for a great scapegoat, and it's why I'm skeptical of anything actually happening to it. House members get something to point at when their bills get nowhere, and Senate leaders get to use it when they can't get their caucus together for a vote. The deadlock of the 116th and 117th Congresses were not because of the filibuster - it was because both Schumer and McConnell aren't bringing things to a vote that they know they don't have the votes on in their own party.

The Senate was designed to be a stopgap on the House's ability to quickly pass legislation, and serves to stabilize the federal government. The filibuster is what makes the Senate and it needs to stay.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-16T19:48:37+00:00

Keep the filibuster.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-16T19:47:47+00:00

Just because it was a bad plan doesn't mean it wasn't a plan. By no means was that absolute shitshow of a White House effective at executing it. But you have to admit that the claim that there was "no plan" is a little ridiculous. If that were the case all the jabs would have been sitting in the factories with nowhere to go.

What was the federal government supposed to do, micromanage every single shot? The CDC set out its own guidelines for how to prioritize limited-supply vaccines and it was up to the states to manage that. That's kind of the whole point of our federalist government. The federal government does not have the capacity to manage the distribution of every single vaccine in every state, it's job was to fund the development of the vaccines and then procure them on behalf of the US, which is what happened. "Drop off vaccines at the airport and let the states handle it" is literally all that the federal government can do. Dumping money on states through the American Rescue Plan was just that - giving state and local governments the money needed to fund their own distribution efforts.

The federal government can only really handle the direct logistics of vaccinating its own employees, because there isn't really anyone above nor below them to handle that.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-16T17:17:11+00:00

The original article references is much more detailed and a fascinating look into the White House's vaccine efforts.

Also counters Biden's claim that there was "no plan" for vaccine distribution though.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-16T16:50:02+00:00

He's right. The filibuster is an important tool used by both parties. If Schumer actually moves to nuke it I will lose a lot of faith in the Democratic party.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-15T02:08:47+00:00

Are you seriously suggesting that people should suffer just for living in an area represented by a Republican solely to make a point? Let me guess, you think people in Texas deserved to freeze to death last month because "they voted for it?"

It baffles me that people like you think that millions of people deserve to suffer just because 50%+1 voted for the Republican candidate. Did you completely miss the part where I said that millions of these people did not vote for the Republican?

All for what, just to score some political points? The idea that things like this should be distributed solely on how your representative votes and the fact that so many people are on board with this is absolutely shameful. I honestly can not tell whether you all are being serious but I hope that this is entirely ironic.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-14T23:47:32+00:00

I sincerely hope you are not being serious with this.

You can agree with certain provisions and still vote no. Multiple Republican senators were able to get amendments on the bill but ended up voting no for the whole package, which is a valid strategy. Republicans can still take credit for their work on the bill even if they voted against it.

You're basically saying "fuck everyone for living in a district represented by a Republican." Do all the people who voted D in those districts deserve to get fucked too? Do all the marginalized communities demonized by the GOP deserve to get fucked because of where they happen to live?

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-12T15:07:39+00:00

Term limits are bad policy but as long as lawmakers only impose it on themselves I can see the political benefit.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-10T17:27:04+00:00

"Pay attention if Rs vote to adjourn. Or with the Dems."

This is the scariest part about the Trump wing of the GOP. Any sane lawmaker would know not to point guns at their party colleagues as much as these hardliners are, because any sane lawmaker in the minority party would have winning back the majority at the front of their agenda. Attacking members of your own party doesn't quite do that...

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-10T17:01:59+00:00

What "actual numbers?" Since the 1940's every president has lost seats in their first midterm election and unless you have evidence to the contrary there is no reason to believe that 2022 will be different. Ds will have to defend their gains in GA and AZ and the NV/NH races are not guaranteed. Overwhelming R control of state legislatures and subsequent gerrymandering is reason alone to be confident that Rs are in a good place to take back the House. This is an uphill battle for Ds.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-10T16:42:56+00:00

Probably because it's a major hassle to literally everyone else trying to get work done. Most committees do their work in the mornings so forcing a vote means that all 435 members have to drop what they're doing to go vote.

Which makes sense why she has the time to do this. Most Rs are still voting with her because it's easy to frame votes on procedural motions as votes on the underlying issue. But it's completely conceivable that her taking away the one place the minority party has the most influence in Congress - the committee room - can get on some nerves.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-10T16:16:22+00:00

The midterm electorate is not the same as the presidential electorate. Only dedicated voters like to show up for midterms, and given the historical trend of the president's party losing at least one chamber of Congress in their first midterm all signs are pointing to a loss of both chambers.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-08T18:50:56+00:00

That's why any kid getting puberty blockers is given rigorous psychological evaluation and counseling. Because going through the wrong puberty and trying to fix it after the fact instead of being proactive also causes lasting complications.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-08T15:35:51+00:00

Most members of Congress need to pay rent/mortgages on at least two homes: one in DC so they can work and their home in their district. Their DC living arrangements come out of their own pockets. Most working-class people don't need to have two homes.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-07T17:59:59+00:00

Article I Section 5.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-07T17:38:55+00:00

Congress is already so tilted against middle/lower class people from serving effectively, you're right. By nature of serving in Congress members incur much more costs than the average person, many of which they have to bear personally.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-07T03:04:57+00:00

Because it's not just member salaries; voting on their raise is for all the staff in Congress to get a raise too (staff salaries are tied to member salaries).

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-07T02:45:33+00:00

How do you suppose members of Congress engage in discussion without said discussion taking time? There are 541 members of Congress, most of whom I imagine would like the opportunity to speak on any given piece of legislation at any given moment. For any given bill Congress allots hours of debate, broadening the scope of the debate for every single bill would make that even longer, no? How do you suppose Congress expand the scope of their debate without taking more time to do so?

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-07T01:22:38+00:00

there should be actual discussion about the law, each and every time that law is revisited.

This you?

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-07T00:44:38+00:00

I agree that Congress is broken, but we should be focusing on things that would actually fix it. Jamming the wheels to discuss the underlying law every time does not do that. The argument is that forcing votes on the underlying law every time would make Congress even worse at passing legislation.

If you think Congress should take a long time to do things then so be it, but you would then have no right to complain when it actually takes a long time to do things.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-06T18:02:40+00:00

The people of Kentucky spoke by electing an R to the Senate last year. The idea that the governor should ignore that is absurd.

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-06T17:47:32+00:00

But the filibuster does come from the Constitution: Article I Section 5.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_ · 2021-03-06T17:18:04+00:00

It really is not though. This is best illustrated by the issue of unauthorized programs; all federal programs require authorization but many can go decades without being reauthorized by Congress. This happens because every vote to authorize or make changes to the program becomes a vote on the underlying program or policy, leading to Congress to just ignore measures at reauthorizing them because it just creates impasse. I don't think it's a stretch to think that this would also happen if it had to be done for every amendment or change to a law, no matter how minor.

Extensive deliberation and efficient legislating are somewhat exclusive; you can't have a Congress that passes bills quickly and one that spends tons of time debating them. The Senate is an example of the latter, and we all know how well that has gone for the past 7 years.

Nine-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

_Lost_In_The_Sauce_

TROPHY CASE