politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
How about just abolishing it entirely?
Fuck the filibuster.
In its current form, anyway. I don't really have a problem with it if it's employed in its original intended method, i.e. the senator in question actually has to keep talking and cannot yield the floor for the entirety of the amount of time he wants to block something. And preferably, we put him in TV in real-time while he's doing it. Under very bright lights.
The way it works now where anyone can just say, "We declare filibuster" serves no purpose other than to allow whoever is in the minority (but let's not kid ourselves, usually Republicans) to infinitely block anything forever without consequences, which is prima facie undemocratic.
We already have two houses and the presidential veto handy to kill legislation. We don't need another obstruction tool.
Is there really any logical reason why one voter should be allowed to block the entire process like that? The whole filibuster concept is the strangest part of US politics to me.
Functionally, there really isn't. The only reason it still exists at all is because "tradition."
I could see how it would be an affordable way to attention to a problematic bill (if it was still done as @dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world stated).
I don't follow what you are saying when that's what would have to happen to do this?
In 2022, she's also said she supports removing the filibuster to get voting rights acts and other things through as well
Republicans got rid of the fulibuster for only judicial nominations so they could stack the courts after years of using the filibuster to deny Dem nominations. It isn't an all or nothing thing.
The wording of getting rid of the filibuster for abortion was previously floated as a one time exception and then keeping around for everything else. This sounded like the same thing, just ending it for the one topic, not ending it in general.
Yes, however, doing it for one type of legislation is opening the same flood gates as any legislation. Given that she's historically called the filibusted archaic and not something she wants in the way of voting rights as well. I don't see her wanting it removed narrowly
This would be the typical Dem strategy - extremely targeted so as not to accidentally open the floodgates for additional impactful legislation to get passed. Just barely enough to campaign on for the next election cycle.
But hey, I’ll take a smidgeon of hope for something more.
It's also the most likely way of getting a bill passed without requiring a Senate super majority. The Grand obstructionist party doesn't want to lose their one move when they don't have presidential veto for general so it's probably going to take a super majority to break up the 30+ year long gridlock since the last amendment was passed, but if you target specific usages and committee procedures you can try to turn the conservative representatives who were personally affected by the law.