[talaniman]

In an effort to thwart the Biden agenda Slick Mitch threatened the dems with retaliation if they got rid of the filibuster rule in the senate.

Mitch McConnell darkly threatens 'scorched earth Senate' if Democrats eliminate the filibuster (yahoo.com)

Of course we know the dems can never pass anything without at least 10 repubs to meet the 60 vote threshold and we when we all know it's aimed at all know Mitch won't allow that to happen. Obama found that out the hard way. At stake here is the (Yet another) John Lewis Civil Rights Bill, and HR 1. Both of which are DOA in a divided senate amid red states voter suppression laws, thus the invocation of Jim Crow.

Truly fascinating repubs still holler voter fraud and make new laws to supposedly stop what they cannot prove when we all know it's all about the ever growing minority vote turnout.

PolitiFact | The history of the filibuster as 'Jim Crow relic'

• The filibuster’s emergence had nothing to do with racial legislation, and it has been used against a wide variety of bills. However, historians agree that the filibuster was closely intertwined with anti-civil-rights efforts in the Senate for more than a century, thanks to repeated efforts by southern senators to filibuster civil rights bills.

[Athos]

In an effort to thwart the Biden agenda Slick Mitch threatened the dems with retaliation if they got rid of the filibuster rule in the senate.

Mitch McConnell darkly threatens 'scorched earth Senate' if Democrats eliminate the filibuster (yahoo.com)

Of course we know the dems can never pass anything without at least 10 repubs to meet the 60 vote threshold and we when we all know it's aimed at all know Mitch won't allow that to happen. Obama found that out the hard way. At stake here is the (Yet another) John Lewis Civil Rights Bill, and HR 1. Both of which are DOA in a divided senate amid red states voter suppression laws, thus the invocation of Jim Crow.

Truly fascinating repubs still holler voter fraud and make new laws to supposedly stop what they cannot prove when we all know it's all about the ever growing minority vote turnout.

PolitiFact | The history of the filibuster as 'Jim Crow relic'

Thanks for showing the history - I didn't know that from the old days. Biden suggests going back to the "Jimmy Stewart" rule from the movie. That might be the best way to go because I don't think the Repubs would act like that in 2021 forward. It's too difficult.

Either way, the minority party loses without some sort of filibuster. Some day that will be the Dems again. I'm less and less inclined to believe that the Repubs will ever do the right thing when in power, so the F. is necessary. I'm open to other ideas. The two-party system leaves a lot to be desired.

[tomder55]

The filibuster predates Jim Crow . I agree it was abused by the Dems during the Civil Rights era .


“What (the American people) don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet.”

“If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask [the Senate minority] to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything.”Senator Obama 2005

This is an instance where I agree with Athos . What will the Dems do ? ....reinstate it before they are the again the minority party ? I remind you that because Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judges ;Trump was able to get 202 Federal judges confirmed without the Dems having any say .

I also am opposed to reconciliation . AND I agree with Quid bring back the' Mr Smith goes to Washington 'version of the filibuster . That would be fun ;and the more they waste time reading phone books ,the less damage they do to the country .

[paraclete]

what a useless idea is a filibuster, the idea that the process of government could be thwarted by speaking absurdities ad infinitum. it is not freedom of speech it is actually an act of rebellion

[tomder55]

no it isn't . The Reubs were complaining about it when the Dems used it to block Bush judicial nominees and were threatening the 'nuclear option' . They did not use it . But the Dems did . Then Trump became President and made the Dems pay by Trump getting anyone he wanted confirmed .

What the filibuster is being blamed for now is actually the polarization of politics . But elimination of the filibuster will only exasperate that problem .

What it does is allow for a debate of issues ,something you rarely see in the House of Reps where majority rules . The minority party is gutted . They may as well have no members for all the good it does them .The framers designed the Senate to operate by consensus If a majority party knows they need 60 votes to end debate on a bill, the necessity of working across the aisle, and negotiating is paramount .

2004 The Repubs controlled Congress and Bush was President . The House passed the Pride Act which would've placed welfare restrictions and amended the
temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. It fell short in the Senate because of the 60 vote threshold . So you see that it works both ways and opposition to it depends on which party is in the majority .

We see what happens when major legislation gets passed like Obamacare and stimulus where Parliamentary trickery like reconciliation is used to bypass filibuster . Half the country has to live with legislation they bitterly oppose that got passed often by a single vote . That is the progressive way . They go balls to the wall for massive fundamental change . Then years later we are left to deal with the consequences of the fact that for a moment in time they had a slight majority .

April 6, 1789, the Senate had it's 1st quorum . 5 weeks later that expected . George Washington sat down for breakfast with his VP Jefferson ,who was frustrated by the process,(and thankfully was in France at the time when the Constitution was debated and ratified ) Jefferson did not see a need for a 2nd house of the legislature .Washington explained that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea..

Getting rid of the filibuster would just make the Senate a weak version of the House . Why not get rid of the Senate too ? Why do we even need a President ? Just make Madam Mim the Prime Minister ?

[jlisenbe]

So you see that it works both ways and opposition to it depends on which party is in the majority .

Exactly correct. To associate the issue with Jim Crow is ridiculous. To suggest that minority voters can't figure out how to have a form of pic ID is itself a soft form of racism.

[Athos]

The filibuster predates Jim Crow . I agree it was abused by the Dems during the Civil Rights era

The Dems then were essentially the Repubs of the day. They blocked Civil Rights legislation.

We see what happens when major legislation gets passed like Obamacare and stimulus where Parliamentary trickery like reconciliation is used to bypass filibuster . Half the country has to live with legislation they bitterly oppose that got passed often by a single vote .

The country, both Repubs and Dems, overwhelmingly support Biden's Covid Relief/stimulus legislation.

[jlisenbe]

The country, both Repubs and Dems, overwhelmingly support Biden's stimulus legislation.

Sad to say, the way to win Americans now is to borrow money to send out checks to people who, for the most part, don't need it. We have become, in effect, enslaved to the federal gov.

[talaniman]

no it isn't . The Reubs were complaining about it when the Dems used it to block Bush judicial nominees and were threatening the 'nuclear option' . They did not use it . But the Dems did . Then Trump became President and made the Dems pay by Trump getting anyone he wanted confirmed .

Senate Dems to Block All Nominations | Fox News

What the filibuster is being blamed for now is actually the polarization of politics . But elimination of the filibuster will only exasperate that problem .

I think it's to prevent a tough vote by repubs. Imagine what the sound bites for 2022 will look like with dems hammering repubs for a no vote for a very popular covid relief bill, and add some state negating civil rights/voting bills to the mix.

What it does is allow for a debate of issues ,something you rarely see in the House of Reps where majority rules . The minority party is gutted . They may as well have no members for all the good it does them .The framers designed the Senate to operate by consensus If a majority party knows they need 60 votes to end debate on a bill, the necessity of working across the aisle, and negotiating is paramount .

That never happened when repubs had control through the Obama years or when the dufus was in the WH. Maybe you like the gridlock, because it gives states a free rein, but partisan gridlock keeps many things from being done even with a debate. Yeah I've watched those debates but the outcome is NOTHING.

2004 The Repubs controlled Congress and Bush was President . The House passed the Pride Act which would've placed welfare restrictions and amended the
temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. It fell short in the Senate because of the 60 vote threshold . So you see that it works both ways and opposition to it depends on which party is in the majority .

Again Tom I think contexts is important Senate, Torn by Minimum Wage, Shelves Major Welfare Bill - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

We see what happens when major legislation gets passed like Obamacare and stimulus where Parliamentary trickery like reconciliation is used to bypass filibuster . Half the country has to live with legislation they bitterly oppose that got passed often by a single vote . That is the progressive way . They go balls to the wall for massive fundamental change . Then years later we are left to deal with the consequences of the fact that for a moment in time they had a slight majority .

If my half of the country can live with rich guys getting mo money and conservative judges, then your half can live with expanded medicaid and mo money for po' folks especially during a covid induced economic crisis.

April 6, 1789, the Senate had it's 1st quorum . 5 weeks later that expected . George Washington sat down for breakfast with his VP Jefferson ,who was frustrated by the process,(and thankfully was in France at the time when the Constitution was debated and ratified ) Jefferson did not see a need for a 2nd house of the legislature .Washington explained that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea..

That's all well and good but when the people choose a government then they should get what they voted for even if they change the government and it gets repealed by later elections.

Getting rid of the filibuster would just make the Senate a weak version of the House . Why not get rid of the Senate too ? Why do we even need a President ? Just make Madam Mim the Prime Minister ?

In these times Tom, dems should shove some change down repubs throats because that's what the country voted for. You may not think civil right and voting is a big deal but trust me minorities certainly do. It is that simple.

[Athos]

You may not think civil right and voting is a big deal but trust me minorities certainly do. It is that simple.

All decent right-thinking Americans consider civil rights and voting a big deal - a very big deal. Not supporting S-1 is unthinkable, but I wouldn't put it past the present crop of Repubs.

[jlisenbe]

All decent right-thinking Americans consider civil rights and voting a big deal - a very big deal.

Agree completely. Take the thirty minutes to get your FREE picture ID and vote away. If it's not worth thirty minutes of your time, then forget it. We spend a lot more time than that to get a drivers license.

[Athos]

The Repub state legislatures are trying to pass bills aimed directly at minorities. Eliminating Sunday voting - a tradition among black churches when they go together to vote after Church.

The best one is making it illegal to give water and snacks to people waiting in line to vote. This beauty is from the Georgia Legislature.

[jlisenbe]

Eliminating Sunday voting - a tradition among black churches when they go together to vote after Church.

Why would anyone need to vote on Sunday? Why should any group be given special privileges?

The best one is making it illegal to give water and snacks to people waiting in line to vote. This beauty is from the Georgia Legislature.

The Georgia law is actually designed to prevent partisan groups from trying to influence voters by passing out any kind of gift including food or water. They can pass out whatever they want as the people arrive or depart since the law is specific that it cannot be done only within 150 feet of the building where the voting takes place. It's the same idea that prevents the passing out of political literature to voters at polling places.

[Wondergirl]

Why would anyone need to vote on Sunday? Why should any group be given special privileges?

Georgia polls have been open on Sundays (weekends) since 2014. It's not just for Black voters. "Friends and neighbors go to church together, then travel in a caravan of cars or buses to vote, an event known as Souls to the Polls.”
https://www.ajc.com/politics/plan-to...LKSA5IY4JGAGA/

[jlisenbe]

It's not just for Black voters

OK. So then it does not have racist intent. At least that's settled.

Now maybe someone will present any kind of evidence that Georgia has a bunch of black churches that all go off to vote at who knows where on Sunday.

[Wondergirl]

Now maybe someone will present any kind of evidence that Georgia has a bunch of black churches that all go off to vote at who knows where on Sunday.

From my link above:

"Over 71,000 people in 26 counties voted on Sundays during early voting in October, according to state voting records.

Most Sunday ballots were cast in metro areas that lean Democratic, such as DeKalb, Fulton, Gwinnett and Muscogee counties. Several counties that went for Republican President Donald Trump also provided Sunday voting, including Camden, Floyd, Lowndes and Monroe counties."

Republican (white?) voters are more than capable of forming caravans of cars and buses and driving to polling places after church.

[jlisenbe]

How many of the 70K were in caravans from black churches? Why would they not vote on Tuesday? How many would not have voted if they had been forced to vote on Tuesday?

Can’t dem voters simply vote when everyone else does?

[Wondergirl]

How many of the 70K were in caravans from black churches? Why would they not vote on Tuesday? How many would not have voted if they had been forced to vote on Tuesday?

Can’t dem voters simply vote when everyone else does?

It doesn't matter. They -- dems and repubs -- voted. End of story.

[jlisenbe]

So it's not partisan since dem and repubs voted, and it's not racial since you said it was not just for black voters. That's sounds fine with me. The bill certainly was not "aimed at minorities".

[tomder55]

election day for Federal officials is set by Congress as "the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November" . No where does that say Sunday or multiple days or days before the day set by Congress . Anytime Congress wants to change that they could . I suggest that if the Dems want anything else than what is already the law ,they are free to do so , State legislatures ,governors ,courts have no business changing that .It is unconstitutional to do so .