Hypothetical: If they drop the nuke, and we regain the Senate in 2006

[steelyboo]

Do we hold it against them? Meaning, do we not reinstate it, rub their nose in the shit, and pass some things we could never get through because of the filibuster (or threat thereof) (national healthcare for example)?

IMHO, if they drop it, we stick it in their ass and break it off. I would be cautious though because of the political backlash that could rubberband right back to us. Just curious what you guys think.
(sorry if this has been talked about previously)

[Technowitch]

1. No. Our side should restore the 'rule of law'.

And open lots and lots of investigations.

[mmonk]

2. Then any legislative iniatives by a democratic congresss

can be struck down by a rightwing court.

[beyurslf]

3. If they use the nuclear option and remove the filibuster...there is NO WAY

we should restore when we have power. They are counting on us doing that. They know we like to be "right" and follow "rules" so they have no reason not to get rid of the filibuster now. We would certainly give it back to them if they are the minority. I say HELL NO and make them live by their own damn rules.

[tritsofme]

4. It would still work in their favor as long as a Republican was in the WH

Because any majority we would have would likely be very slim, and if they could get nominees out of committee we would still not be able to filibuster them and it would only take 51 votes for their confirmation.

Also, we probably could not overturn it until we got a Democratic president, because Cheney would still preside over the senate and he would determine that it would be unconstitutional to change back the rules, and we definitely wouldn't have the 67 votes necessary to change rules outright.

Also what they are doing now with the filibuster of judicial nominees wouldn't apply to the legislative filibuster, or things like national healthcare.

[steelyboo]

6. true about the scope, although I truly have trouble understanding how

they think its ok to set up special rules for only 1 narrow circumstance. Oh, wait, this is the party of "Schindler-Schiavo", 1 stop shopping for all of your personal legislative needs.

[tritsofme]

9. The logic goes that a filibuster of judicial nominees

interferes with the Senate's constitutional responsibility to "advise and consent" on executive nominees.

And that stance would be perfectly fine with me if they went about a legitimate way of changing the rules, which requires 67 votes. They are doing this in a very sneaky and unprecendented way which should not surprise anyone.

[democracyindanger]

5. Bonk it on their heads for as long as it remains politically feasible

Then reinstate it with a lot of hullaballoo, a lot of Dems talking about "restoring the Constitution as the founders intended it to be." Make it a centerpiece of a campaign where Liberal America is working to fix government, i.e. investigate and correct the myriad of injustices the 'conservatives' have wrought the past 6 years.

Every poll I've seen shows that a majority across the political spectrum thinks the filibuster should remain. Plus, it's the correct thing to do.

[Zenlitened]

10. Bingo!

:thumbsup:

[More Than A Feeling]

7. Restore the Filibuster

(but first, see how much they will pay us to do it, we might be able to win concessions on Healthcare and the like in exchange for the filibuster)

[Terran1212]

8. Legislate universal healthcare then reinstate it

:)

[WilliamPitt]

11. Anything they pass would be vetoed

so restore the filibuster.

[adigal]

12. First, we should put Hillary Clinton on the Supreme Court

then we should reinstate the fair and proper use of the fillibuster.
That should do it for the right wing wackos!

[paineinthearse]

13. If we just win the Senate, the rethugs still hold the house and the WH

It would be a shallow victory. It would empower the launch of a special investigations committee, like Sam Ervin's special committee on the presidency (watergate).

The key is to win the House, the Senate is gravy.

Winning the House enables controlling...

1. the budget.
2. the ethics committee (DeLay).
3. reform committee (all those scandals in Waxman's queue).
4. and most importantly, juduciary committee (impeachment).