Filibuster on the "other foot"

[SHRED]

Say the Senate filibuster is removed.

Then let's say the Congress and the President agree to raising the eligibility ages or other bullshit cuts to the big three (SSI, Medicare, Medicaid) instead of enhancing them via revenue increases like lifting the caps.

What tools would say a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren have at their disposal, in the Senate, to stop the cuts?


--

[Report1212]

1. I think you're reversing the game

What's more likely in the near future is that a filibuster prevents good things from happening. Dems control the Senate. In the future yes Republicans might take control, then a filibuster would be more useful.

But either way

Let's get rid of the damn thing. It's undemocratic and obstructionary.

[SHRED]

2. I think my scenario is a very real possibilty

[MrBig]

3. Removing the Filibuster is a terrible idea

One that comes up after each election cycle by the party that controls the Senate. I firmly remember back in the middle of the last decade how Republicans sought to eliminate the filibuster and how (rightfully) Democrats were appalled at this notion.

Just because Democrats control the Senate does not mean the filibuster should be removed. The OP makes a great point about just one reason why the filibuster needs to stay. The other should be obvious to everyone: history shows us Republicans will, at some point, take back the Senate. Might not be in 2014 or 2016, but eventually it will happen. So...what then?

[Liberal Gramma]

4. What if the use of the filibuster was restricted

Say, 10 filiibusters allowed per congressional session. That would allow its use when necessary but would prevent abuse of its power.

[HereSince1628]

5. Making the filibuster return to something like its past costs to invoke wouldn't end it.

The tyranny of the obstructionist minority that has emerged makes an absolute mockery out of majority rule.

Making one or a group of senators actively hold the floor isn't that much to ask. It not only has a physical cost, it also demands that they put the filibuster ahead of all their other obligations. The importance of those other obligations, failing to meet those obligations becomes a political cost. If they put reading grandma's cookie recipes above other needs and desires of their constituents they had better be doing it for an important reason.

[denverbill]

6. That's why we have elections.

When Republickers get back the Senate, which will certainly happen someday, if they want to cut the big three, so be it. There will be a price to pay at the next election and when that happens, Democrats can restore the cuts.

Bernie and Elizabeth can filibuster as long as they hold the floor. That's how the filibuster is supposed to work. It's not a veto, it's a delaying tactic.