al franken has it right on msnbc. dems need to be like mitch not manchin and

[msongs]

do what it takes to pass the election bill, ditch the filibuster and get it done in DC

one can be ruthless and still legal and ethical

[StarfishSaver]

1. Did Sen. Franken give any specifics on how they should do this?

I love him, but it's easy to be on the outside telling them what they should do. But I have yet to hear anyone say what that really means.

How exactly do Dems "be like Mitch" and ditch the filibuster while remaining legal and ethical. Mitch's entire MO is to be unethical and illegal (at least, unconstitutional) - that's the gravamen of his success. How are Democrats to model themselves on a ethical, law-abiding Mitch McConnell?

I have no doubt that if it were as easy as some folk (including my beloved Sent. Franken) insist it is, the Dems would have done it long ago.

[msongs]

2. he listed some strategies and specific steps to take but I did not memorize them

be like mitch as in relentlessly on task to implement his announced agenda from what I recall

[StarfishSaver]

3. Democrats ARE relentlessly on task

But that's not going to get rid of the filibuster ...

[berni_mccoy]

6. Please recognize reality

[pnwmom]

9. What are the Dem leaders supposed to do about Sinema and Manchin? n/t

[lapfog_1]

4. he was promoting the

change the filibuster from 60 votes to move on to 41 votes to filibuster... and the repukes have to keep 41 senators in the chamber, debating.. continuously.. if they want to stop the 51 vote majority from winning.

However, the time for such rule changes is passed I think. They WANT to default on the debt limit... because they believe they can either a) blame the democrats and/or b) halt the build back better agenda (Susan Collins has already floated that turd).

But three months ago it might have been a decent idea to get Manchin onboard with amending the filibuster rule back to what it was... OTOH, Sinema is simply attention obsessed and, well, crazy... so even then it was like never going to happen.

[Takket]

13. This should absolutely be done

The filibustering party should carry the onus of continuing the filibuster. Not the party that wants to move on. We should return to the days where if you wanted to filibuster you actually had to work for it. Rethugs are lazy and if they need to speak and/or keep 41 people in the chamber to stop Dems from voting, I think they will suddenly lose their appetite.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Did he say how they were to push through that rule change with fewer than 50 votes?

[PortTack]

5. I bookmarked this some time ago. Is this correct?

Law professors: the filibuster is unconstitutional, and Kamala Harris can issue a ruling.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/op-ed-filibuster-unconstitutional-heres-101532325.html

There is a clear next step in changing the Senate filibuster: Vice President Kamala Harris, as presiding officer of the Senate, can — and should — declare the current Senate filibuster rule unconstitutional. This would open the door for discussions on a new rule that would respect the minority without giving it an unconstitutional veto.

In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon, sitting as presiding officer of the Senate, issued two advisory opinions holding that a crucial provision of the Senate’s filibuster rule — requiring two-thirds vote to amend it — was unconstitutional. Nixon’s constitutional determination was reaffirmed by subsequent vice presidents Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller. In fact, it was this ruling that allowed both the Democratic-controlled Senate in 2013 and the Republican-controlled Senate in 2017 by a simple majority vote to eliminate filibusters for all executive and judicial nominees.

Harris possesses the same power to rule that the current version of the Senate filibuster, which essentially establishes a 60-vote supermajority rule to enact legislation in the Senate, is unconstitutional because it denies states “equal Suffrage in the Senate” in violation of Article V of the Constitution.

[tritsofme]

7. This is the political equivalent of fantasy fiction

[Takket]

12. That is about as realistic as the plan for Pence to not certify the election

If this actually worked Harris would have been all over it months ago.

[StarfishSaver]

20. It's an interesting idea, but completely unrealistic

Among other things, this was floated in March, before it Manchin made clear he did not support eliminating the filibuster. And, as the authors specifically, this plan would require Manchin's support.

The full Senate could seek to overrule Harris by majority vote. In that case, the senators would no longer be debating the filibuster as mere political policy, but about a profound constitutional question. Sen. Joe Manchin, and a Republican senator or two, might well care about ensuring that no state is deprived of “equal suffrage” under the Constitution.

If the Senate were to try this, there is no doubt that a majority of Senators - including Manchin and Sinema - would overrule the Vice President.

So, while this may have been an interesting idea in the abstract six months ago, it's not going to happen.

[Rhiannon12866]

8. I completely agree, he's right as usual. Here's the video for those who missed it:

After Blocking Debt Ceiling Vote, Mitch McConnell Blames Democrats - The 11th Hour - MSNBC
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017685352

Former Democratic senator Al Franken discusses the current fight on Capitol Hill over the debt limit and the the state of the Democratic party still divided over Pres. Biden's agenda. Aired on 10/04/2021.

[abqtommy]

10. My experience and knowledge of history leads me to firmly believe that "the end

justifies the means".

[uponit7771]

11. Bingo !!!! " Going high" doesn't mean punching GQP fist with our faces !! Get into food trouble !!

[doc03]

14. I can't picture Chuck getting tough nt

[Scrivener7]

17. I hope a miracle happens and he decides to. But realistically, I don't expect him to.

[zanana1]

15. But if Republicans take back the senate...

The filibuster can be used by Democrats.

[Buckeyeblue]

16. We should do whatever we can to either eliminate or redefine the filibuster

Essentially, 20.5 states can exert their will on the country. And for Republicans, those 20.5 states make up a very low percentage of our overall population.

If we wanted to create a more equitable filibuster, it should be that the opposed Senators need to represent over 40% of the population of the country. Use census numbers to establish each Senator's weighted percentage at the start of each term. I would even be comfortable saying it needs to be at least 41 senators and over 40% of the weighted population percentage assigned each senator. That way a smaller number of senators from big states could unfairly tip the balance.

I know the states rights people would flip their lid but small states exerting their will is destroying the country.

[lagomorph777]

19. Yes, of course! Tired of endless Manchinations; like a bad movie at the Sinema.

[themaguffin]

22. what show was he on?