HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The filibuster is a big t...

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 12:59 PM

The filibuster is a big tradeoff, but there is a compromise to move forward: new exceptions

The filibuster protects Democratic legislation like the ACA from being repealed or a GOP majority from forcing extreme partisan bills like they have been doing on voting rights in the states, but it also prevents almost any consequential bill from being passed right now.

But already exceptions exist for the filibuster:
federal judges
supreme court judges
budget reconciliation

So why not some more?

Really, what should be done is create new exceptions for the filibuster:

Civil rights legislation would be a natural (this could include voting rights)
Perhaps any fundamental rights bill

Does this sound reasonable?
Any other suggestions for exceptions?

25 replies, 1057 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply The filibuster is a big tradeoff, but there is a compromise to move forward: new exceptions (Original post)
andym Jun 2021 OP
brooklynite Jun 2021 #1
andym Jun 2021 #3
brooklynite Jun 2021 #4
dsc Jun 2021 #10
Shermann Jun 2021 #6
wryter2000 Jun 2021 #2
moose65 Jun 2021 #5
tritsofme Jun 2021 #13
moose65 Jun 2021 #14
tritsofme Jun 2021 #20
W_HAMILTON Jun 2021 #19
tritsofme Jun 2021 #22
W_HAMILTON Jun 2021 #23
tritsofme Jun 2021 #25
GoodRaisin Jun 2021 #7
andym Jun 2021 #8
Crunchy Frog Jun 2021 #11
CrispyQ Jun 2021 #12
moose65 Jun 2021 #15
Whiskeytide Jun 2021 #17
W_HAMILTON Jun 2021 #21
bucolic_frolic Jun 2021 #9
peggysue2 Jun 2021 #16
W_HAMILTON Jun 2021 #18
WarGamer Jun 2021 #24

Response to andym (Original post)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:00 PM

1. You still need to convince ALL Democratic Senators to go along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:15 PM

3. That's why a civil rights exception is such a good choice

Even Republicans would be hard pressed to oppose it, as they went along with Juneteenth despite the racial bias among their supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:19 PM

4. Question: is an abortion ban a "civil rights" issue for the fetus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:52 PM

10. they will get abortion bans from the courts

and the states they control. For about 80% of the states there will be abortion bills and you will have wide swaths of the country in which an abortion will be impossible to obtain legally. In the south, you will have Richmond, Norfolk and that will be it. Once GA reliably changes you will have Atlanta. That is about 1/4 of the population that will have to travel several states to get an abortion legally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:27 PM

6. Republicans will have no difficulty forming opposing talking points

Do they ever?

They opposed the voting rights bill on the grounds that it was merely an attempt to sway elections masquerading as something else.

Along the same lines, their position on this would be that any "civil rights legislation" tag could conceivably be abused as it is too nebulous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:05 PM

2. Jim Clyburn suggested that, and I love it

However, just because we maintain the filibuster doesn't mean the Republicans will if they retake the majority. And as the poster below says, we still need 50 votes to pull it off. Frankly, at this point, I have some hope for Joe Manchin. Sinema sounds like a total lost cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:23 PM

5. One quibble.....

The filibuster did not protect the ACA from being repealed. Remember McCain's thumbs-down vote? He was the third Republican, after Collins and Murkowski, to vote against the repeal. Pence was present in the Senate that day to break a potential tie.

That being said, I agree with your general idea. Since there already exist carveouts, more could be added. Voting rights seems a good one to pursue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moose65 (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 02:19 PM

13. You can be sure that if Republicans did not have to navigate ACA through the mess of reconciliation

It would have passed. The filibuster definitely saved ACA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:11 PM

14. That doesn't make any sense

So the Dems couldn't filibuster it and it failed. So tell us again how the filibuster saved it? It wasn't even used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moose65 (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:53 PM

20. The filibuster absolutely saved the ACA. Without the filibuster, they would have not had to force

their bill through the reconciliation process, and all of its convoluted rules. The filibuster forced Republicans to go down a path that left them very constrained.

Outside of reconciliation they would have definitely been able to craft something that got agreement among themselves and passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #13)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:51 PM

19. No it didn't.

A small handful of Republicans voting against its repeal is what saved it. If McCain and the others voted in favor of repeal, the ACA as we know it would have been effectively ended.

Once again, there was a vote for repeal. It failed. These bills that the Republicans are filibustering now are not even being put up for a vote because there is not enough votes to invoke cloture and get past the point where they can be filibustered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W_HAMILTON (Reply #19)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:57 PM

22. They wouldn't have voted on anything that looked like that reconciliation bill if there was no

filibuster.

The filibuster forced them to use reconciliation, which was a predictably unworkable path, and they still almost passed it.

In a filibuster free Senate, working outside the guard rails of reconciliation, there is no doubt they could have come to an agreement between themselves, and killed the ACA as we know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #22)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 05:11 PM

23. No, that's just not true.

The reconciliation was basically a slimmed down version of the ACA repeal; if they couldn't even muster a simple majority to repeal the ACA that way, they most certainly were not going to repeal the ACA outright (which would have meant eliminating the preexisting conditions clause, the lifetime limits clause, etc.). It was all just a scenario of the dog catching the car. They wanted to run on repealing the ACA, but they never wanted to repeal it outright because there would be so much backlash and then THEY would have to be the ones defending their decision rather than just attacking the ACA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W_HAMILTON (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 06:55 PM

25. I don't know what to tell you. Reconciliation is just not a good vehicle to move major health

insurance market reforms. There’s a reason we passed ACA with 60 votes, through regular order, and didn’t try to push the whole thing through reconciliation after losing the supermajority.

I’m not sure why you are determined to ignore the fact that a bill considered under regular order would have looked much different and faced a much different path. They tailored their bill to pass muster under reconciliation rules, and it still took a major Byrd bath, without those restraints it would have looked very different, and likely passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:28 PM

7. Keeping the filibuster now won't prevent McConnell from getting rid of it

if the Thugs take back the majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoodRaisin (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:48 PM

8. McConnell didn't act before to end the filibuster when Trump demanded it

So why would McConnell act in the future with a less compelling force?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:59 PM

11. Because he knew the Dems would likely retake the Senate at some point.

If they know that their hold on power is permanent, which it might well be after the passage of all these state election laws, I have no doubt that they will eliminate the filibuster whenever they believe it's to their advantage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crunchy Frog (Reply #11)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 02:12 PM

12. This.

McConnell hasn't had the confidence that they would hold the senate. Once he does, all bets are off. The filibuster will be gone faster than you can say Joe Manchin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:13 PM

15. Because of a fundamental difference

The Democrats hardly used the filibuster, because Republicans don't care about passing laws that benefit the people. I mean, the only really big legislative thing they did was the tax cuts, and that wasn't subject to a filibuster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:26 PM

17. Even McConnell assumed Тяцмр would ...

… flip the Senate. They tried to keep it every way they could - but he could smell which way Тяцмр was blowing the wind even back in 2017. It was merely a tactical move. This is a man who stole two SC seats with open and shameless hypocrisy. Do you think for a minute he wouldn’t scrap the filibuster to pass sweeping voter suppression laws at the Federal level - now that they are “in vogue” and peddled by the media arm of the GQP?

In 2017, a good number of Senate repubs would likely have balked at voter suppression as a bridge too far. 2020 showed them that they HAVE to suppress to win again. Those principled GQP senators no longer exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:54 PM

21. He didn't end the filibuster because he could already pass everything he wanted with 50 votes.

Confirm lower court judges? Confirm Supreme Court Justices? Cut taxes for the wealthy?

He did all of those things with just a simple majority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 01:51 PM

9. If you can't suspend the filibuster to protect the sovereignty of the State, what's it all about?

War Power resolutions would not be filibustered. Defending the political system of the country in any form should not be either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:26 PM

16. I think this is a reasonable approach

However, every single Dem Senator has to be on board. Lisa Murkowski has said she would vote for voting rights. However, she's facing a snarly primary for the 2022 mid-terms, a fight and poll numbers that could easily change her mind.

As for the rest of the Senate Republicans? Wouldn't trust any of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 03:36 PM

18. The filibuster didn't protect the ACA from being repealed.

The Republicans were willing and able to repeal it with just a simple majority, but they were not able to muster a simple majority -- remember the McCain thumbs down moment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to andym (Original post)

Tue Jun 22, 2021, 05:20 PM

24. I've said similar things.

Don't turn the bow of the legislative ship and beach her on the reef if you can't get S1 through.

I truly believe we can get... with bipartisan support:


1) approx $1.2T infrastructure

2) universal background checks for firearms

3) modest green proposals like new EV/Home Solar credits

4) increasing Social Security floor

5) modest police reform, like nationwide ban on neck restraint, maybe mandatory bodycams?


No, you won't get 40 GOP'ers in the Senate... but don't need them. You can get 10 of them to vote to advance to a floor vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread