LogFAQs > #949927509

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, Database 7 ( 07.18.2020-02.18.2021 ), DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicPolitics Containment Topic 362: Now With Diet Coke Button
Suprak the Stud
01/26/21 12:56:51 AM
#125:


xp1337 posted...
Honestly, an idea I saw proposed not too long ago that I liked (though not as much as just eliminating the filibuster) is inverting how it works.

As is, the majority needs to get 60 votes to end debate and move forward. The idea I saw was to flip that and require the minority to produce 40 votes to continue it. At first blush it might seem like nothing (and that might even be politically advantageous to people who don't follow the minutia in all this) but it would basically require the minority to actually have to put in some actual effort and cost to obstruct things instead of being able to do so trivially. The GOP would basically have to keep 40 Senators on or near the Senate floor at all times because if someone called for an end of debate they'd have to actually have the votes on the floor to keep it going at basically all hours.

Like, it still feels like too much theater to me and they should just abolish it, but if you really want to appease the "but it's tradition~" folks I think this would be a fairly effective tool. Do McConnell, Grassley, etc. want to basically live in the Senate chambers for these votes? You wouldn't even have to change the 60/40 numbers (though you could do that on top of this!) or require it to be a talking filibuster (or tack that on as well!)

I think it's the better angle to try and persuade Manchin, etc. since at this point I do think it's exceedingly unlikely they straight-up vote to kill the filibuster. But if they can change it from something that requires zero effort on the part of the minority to something that actually requires they have to commit to with real effort, and physical presence... I don't know if all of them want to do that. But who knows, maybe they block something that gets Manchin to change his tune.

Manchin and Sinema have both sort of backed themselves into this idiotic corner of their own creation where I can't see them even agreeing to something like that.

They should've taken the Tester route of "no I'm not in favor of abolishing the filibuster but if McConnell and republicans are assholes with it then I will reassess". Manchin and Sinema were just flat out "no never nuh uh" so I don't see them going back. Could be their intention, obviously, but it doesn't give them any leverage coming up like Tester has.

---
Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1