Sinema Reiterates Opposition to Eliminating Filibuster

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

Link to tweet

First off, I want to give some of the holdouts the benefit of the doubt here - it’s politically expedient for them to wait and see if the Republicans actually allow legislation to pass (lol) when a majority vote for it.

Secondly, I’ve long thought that changing the filibuster so that the senate needs to be in attendance and the individual seeking to take the bill down has to talk without a break is far more likely a next step than killing it outright.

Finally, if the likes of Sinema and Manchin sit back and let the Fascist Party of No Government kill bill after bill, then I would hope the President throws them under the bus and calls them out directly.

It is absolutely true that, in the vast majority of cases, it’s much better to have even a moderate or even conservative Democrat than a Republican in a seat, but if they have no interest in letting a Democratic majority pass legislation that can make a real positive, long-term difference to American lives then there is really no point. The outcome of such chicanery is the public becoming disillusioned with nothing getting done and either staying at home or turning once again to the alternative offered by the Republicans. After a close shave with a dictatorship under Trump, that can only be considered an egregious dereliction of the office these people hold.

[servermsh]

1. The ignorant media is ignoring the filibuster on the organizing resolution

All we need is for Democrats to use the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster on the organizing resolution, not on all generic legislation.

But 99% of the media is too ignorant to understand the difference.

Every Democrat should agree to get rid of the filibuster on the organizing resolution.

[FBaggins]

15. A mistake IMO

Just as the nuclear option on judicial confirmations was a mistake that we came to regret... this would be too.

[servermsh]

17. Absolutely not. This is only on the organizing resolution.

Perhaps you could tell us previous times when the Organizing Resolution has been filibustered? Because I think it may be unprecedented.

There is no reason to allow a filibuster on just organizing the Senate based on who is in control.

[FBaggins]

20. It's not at all unprecedented

Not an actual filibuster, but using the threat of one to force compromise.

The last time the Senate was 50/50 (this time with a Republican VP), democrats forced significant concessions before the organizing resolution was allowed to pass. IIRC, it took several weeks and we end up with equal seats on key committees and equal staff budgets.

[servermsh]

22. Then we'll have Republicans chairing the committees for weeks and months

Because that is what Mitch will do. We're only asking for the same rules!

Meanwhile we are already 22 days closer to January 3rd, 2023 when we may lose the Senate. Of course, we could lose the Senate earlier than that.

Time is wasting.

[2naSalit]

2. What part of...

"We don't have time to fuck around with these assholes' bullshit political games" do they not get?

[msfiddlestix]

13. Right?? I mean aren't these Senators VICTIMS too?

ffs.

[Laelth]

3. The filibuster MUST GO. I don't care how.

If the Republicans are so fond of it, they will be welcome to reinstate it when they next control the Senate. If they don’t, then they will prove that the filibuster has outlived its usefulness.

-Laelth

[Walleye]

5. Yep

[Walleye]

4. Is she too comfortable in gridlock?

If you don’t pass any bills, you don’t have to be responsible for your vote.

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

7. "Do Nothing Sinema"

Would be perfect GOP fodder in the event she survived the inevitable primary. I know, I know that would be typical GOP projection since they literally do nothing, but it’s perfect material for what would likely be an incredibly strong Republican year in 2024 if Biden and a D majority are not allowed to get legislation through.

[Walleye]

26. Good analysis. Why would she be trying to sink us like that

[EndlessWire]

32. I love the part where she says

her mind is not open for changing on the matter. WTF?

[Timewas]

6. Yup

All manchin has to do is threaten to change to rethug and it is over, he can control the entire process with that threat...So we have in our supposed by the people for the people being run by one single person as it has been for the last 12 years..Our entire system needs overhaul but the ones that have the power to do that won't because it benefits them more to leave it as is...

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

11. To that, I'd say call their bluff and let them go

if nothing is getting passed because they’re holding out, it’s much better next election for the Democratic Party to be able to point to one or two bad-faith senators than the entire party just not being willing to do anything. Doubly so if the legislation getting killed is stuff these same filibuster-enthusiasts are actually voting for!

[brooklynite]

29. What basis do you have for imagining a long-term Dem like Manchin would change Parties?

[EndlessWire]

33. If he does that

he will get kicked to the curb. There are plenty of people now that will not vote Repub no matter what.

[KayF]

8. i agree with all your comments

the prospect of the dems not being able to do anything, after all this, is extremely distressing.

One sign of hope, for me, is some things I've heard Biden is doing, which seem stronger than Obama. Another is that Pelosi is stronger than she has been in the past. e.g. two impeachments among other things.

[getagrip_already]

9. breathe....

I don't know who that is that tweeted that, but it is far from an official, or even a confirmed source. "An aid said..."

And since we don't even know the question, it is clearly just click bait.

For example, if the question was "Is the senator opposed to a full nuclear option eliminating the fillibuster entirely", it would probably be a different answer than "are you in favor of a one-time suspension to settle the power shaing transition".

These tweets are generally done with bad intentions, and frequently distort the truth.

F' em. If the senator is asked a question, what was it, when, and what is her answer?

The third hand half truths need to go away.

[MagickMuffin]

10. And ARE these senators comfortable being co-chairs of committees instead of the CHAIR

I would think being the Chair of Committees would hold more power!

If they allow MoscowMitch to continue to be infect the "majority" leader than we have a big problem.

We NEED the Democrats to Chair the committees as well.

[NCjack]

12. Kill the filibuster. It robs people of their votes.

[Midnight Writer]

14. The pisser is that, by going public, she is taking away our threat of action.

We are in negotiations with the GOP Senators.

Why would one of our members, in the midst of this, take one of our major points of leverage off the table?

[FBaggins]

16. I doubt that we're talking about just a couple votes

There could easily be a dozen Senate Democrats who oppose eliminating the filibuster for legislation. There are certainly more than two.

[DSandra]

19. What does this say to all the people who worked hard to get Ossoff and Warnock elected?

That Moscow Mitch and a few Democratic Party turncoats can reverse all that hard work?

[FBaggins]

21. That perhaps they weren't paying attention?

Ossoff and Warnock went out of their way to avoid running on getting rid of the filibuster... while multiple democrats made clear that they would not support it because they knew that we couldn't win GA if electing them would get rid of it.

[DSandra]

25. Have any other ideas on how to get around Moscow Mitch's bomb strapping?

The filibuster was never meant to be a tool of obstruction in the way it’s being used now, it wasn’t even in the Senate at first.

Keeping the filibuster only ensures that this country is headed to a dark ages since the best we get is inaction to the problems of this country which then leads to fuel to Republicans and they will finish the job of destroying this country.

[FBaggins]

28. Would you have liked an option to block Barrett/Kavanaugh and/or Gorsuch?

They're all on the supreme court today because not-so-many years ago someone insisted on finding a way to get around him.

[W_HAMILTON]

34. Wrong.

The filibuster was never eliminated for Supreme Court nominees. All of Obama's Supreme Court nominees -- all of the ones that were allowed to be put up for a vote, that is -- got 60+ votes.

Mitch McConnell and Mitch McConnell alone eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. If McConnell wants something, he won't let Democrats stand in the way of it. That's why everything they wanted passed recently, they got passed with a simple majority. And to cut off any "but they didn't repeal Obamacare because of the filibuster!" the rebuttal to that is they didn't repeal it because they could not get a simple majority to repeal it (e.g., remember McCain's "thumb down" moment).

[FBaggins]

35. Sorry... that's spin

They were able to eliminate the filibuster for SCOTUS confirmations because Reid eliminated it for all other nominations and made clear that he would do so for SCOTUS confirmations if Republicans tried to block one.

We could go back even further and look at threats to trigger the "nuclear option"... but we can't pretend that MAD wasn't triggered by the first bomb to go off.

[W_HAMILTON]

36. No, your explanation is spin. And Republican spin at that.

You really think McConnell would have just idly watched as Democrats held up Trump nominations the same way he held up Obama's? Of course not, which is why he immediately eliminated the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations the second Democrats tried it with Gorsuch's nomination.

[FBaggins]

38. Nope. I was here at the time and was part of the debate

You really think McConnell would have just idly watched as Democrats held up Trump nominations the same way he held up Obama's?

We'll never know. We do know at the time that he said he would if we pulled the trigger.

But we can't pretend that the nuclear button was pushed because "they'll do it to us anyway".

What I do know is that we debated it here at the time. Many of us pointed out that we would regret the decision and would be much worse off for making it.

[W_HAMILTON]

42. Many around here are chicken littles over everything, so that's no surprise.

Fact is, McConnell and his Republicans -- not Obama and the Democrats -- eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. Do not try to spin it any other way.

[BComplex]

18. Schumer just needs to go nuclear and get it over with.

We need to steam roll over republicans if we're ever going to satisfy the major mandate that we got from the voters re: Biden's agenda.

[FBaggins]

23. He doesn't have the votes. nt

[StarfishSaver]

31. How do you suggest he do that if he doesn't have the votes?

[BlueIdaho]

24. The filibuster is as corrosive to democracy

As the electoral college is. Rather than fearing the consequences, let’s encourage a Senate that must fully debate all bills brought to the floor and then vote them up or down. No more hiding behind a 60 vote wall.

[Eid Ma Clack Shaw]

27. Yep. Also, do people seriously think the GOP WON'T nuke it under

Senate Majority Leader Hawley and President Boebert / Trump Jr if gridlock leads, once again, to just enough people staying at home in 2022 and just enough people giving a manifestly unfit and insane GOP Presidential nominee another bite at the authoritarian cherry?

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

30. There's no good reasons for these Senators to block the filibuster right now.

Only very, very bad reasons.

Helping McConnell after what he has done to the people of the United States and the US itself is seriously sick and wrong, and contemptible beyond measure.

[BGBD]

37. Ending filibusters of any type

Would come back to bite us, as it did with the judiciary.

[Demsrule86]

40. nothing gets done if the filibuster stays.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

41. I agree.

There may be a time where we may need it to block republicans.

[Blue_true]

39. I agree with your last paragraph.

If Democrats can exercise the power of being in the majority, even by a small amount, there is no difference between when republicans held the majority.