Joe Manchin just took an important filibuster reform off the table

[Calista241]

Source: Vox

Sen. Joe Manchin, the most conservative member of the Senate Democratic caucus, has spent the past couple of weeks doling out cryptic hints that he might be open to changing filibuster rules that currently allow the Republican minority to block most legislation unless a bill is supported by at least 60 senators.

On Wednesday, however, he appeared to shut the door on several ideas floated by proponents of filibuster reform within the Senate. Manchin’s latest move does not mean that filibuster reform is dead, but it does suggest that Democrats who wish to make it easier to enact legislation may struggle to come up with a strong package of reforms that will win Manchin’s support.

Earlier this month, Manchin told Meet the Press’s Chuck Todd that he’s open to making the filibuster “a little bit more painful” for the minority, and that he might be willing to make senators “stand there and talk” if they wish to maintain a filibuster. The West Virginia senator, in other words, appeared open to a so-called “talking filibuster,” where senators who wish to block legislation must speak continuously on the Senate floor in order to maintain a filibuster.

...

And Manchin’s newly stated opposition to burden shifting — that is, moving to requiring 41 senators to sustain a filibuster instead of requiring 60 senators to break one — is a particularly significant blow to reform efforts. Burden shifting, combined with other reforms such as a talking filibuster, could have imposed very potent limits on the minority’s power to obstruct legislation.

Read more: https://www.vox.com/2021/3/17/22336181/joe-manchin-filibuster-reform-41-votes-talking-jeff-merkley-senate-rules

[PoliticAverse]

1. Bringing back the talking filibuster is all that is needed. n/t

[qazplm135]

3. how so?

explain please.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Talking filibusters rarely succeed because you can just wait them out and the longest...

talking filibuster by a single senator was 24 hours 18 minutes. If there's a concerted effort by several senators the filibuster can last longer (the one that attempted to stop the civil rights act was about 60 days in total) but if the bill is important enough the bill's proponents can wait it out.

It would be nice to eliminate the filibuster entirely but the chances of that happening seem to be rather slim.

[qazplm135]

18. I think you being quite optimistic

Their side is pretty unified, and you only need 8 Senators to get you through each night with only one hour per Senator from say midnight to 8am. They easily have three times as many in their most conservative/Trumpian block so odds are no one would have to serve more than 2 nights a week for one hour.

I see no reason why they cannot do that indefinitely, and it's not like public pressure is going to work on the worst of them.

There aren't just a handful of crazies on their side now, there are a lot more than that.

[PoliticAverse]

19. Perhaps, but make them do it. Maybe such tactics would bring the Democratic filibuster holdouts

around to even further modifications.

[qazplm135]

24. I don't think that will be true either

It assume Manchin and Sinema are doing it strictly out of principle as opposed to more professional or personal reasons tied to their states or their bipartisan proclivities. I don't think those two are doing things because they truly believe republicans will eventually pass some moderate stuff. They do it because they think, rightly or wrongly, that it looks good in their states and because if the filibuster goes away, then every bill that doesn't pass (or does) is in large part on them for being the deciding vote one way or the other, and I don't think they want that kind of attention and pressure. The filibuster takes that off of them.

The best way to get rid of the filibuster, if that's what you want, is to elect more Democratic Senators so that those two, and any others, no longer matter (which would suit them just fine because the pressure would also be relieved while still being able to perform the role of bipartisan moderate).

[PoliticAverse]

25. Well unless DC and or Puerto Rico become a state soon the next time to elect more Democrats...

in the Senate isn't until 2 years and there is always the possibility Democrats lose the House even if the increase the margin in the Senate.

[qazplm135]

29. That's the problem here

and I am not saying it's you, but too many on our side put all the eggs in the basket of now, and when that basket doesn't get filled, they walk off and say, Dems suck.

That basket probably ain't going to get filled. We need people to understand that it's going to take more than one election to turn things around. We need people to understand that 2022 is as if not more important than 2020 if they want Democratic or progressive progress. Put in two more Senators, hold what we have every where else, and boom, stuff starts to change quickly.

Give up because it didn't all happen in the first two years, and we are back to the remainder of Obama's time in office after the ACA with divided government and absolutely nothing getting down.

[dsc]

35. If we don't pass a VRA then it won't matter

they are about to make it illegal for Blacks to vote in GA and for Hispanics and NA to vote in Arizona. Add making it illegal for Blacks to vote in WI, OH, and soon we won't be able to win any elections held in any place at any time.

[FBaggins]

47. Hyperbole much?

They're going to make it illegal for Blacks to vote in GA?

[dsc]

49. If they could they would

what they will do, is create lines of double digit hours, forbid people from feeding or giving drinks to the people in those lines, and we will be lucky if we have more than one polling place in Fulton County. BTW Arizona is already considering just having the legislature cast their EV instead of using the results of the vote.

[dsc]

60. Apparently not here is the law they are debating today

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/georgia-legislature-voting-restrictions-new-bill/index.html

Some voting-rights activists singled out for criticism a provision that would give any Georgian the right to challenge the eligibility of an unlimited number of voters. In the run-up to the January 5 Senate runoff elections, groups, such as the conservative organization True the Vote, sought to cast doubts of the eligibility of hundreds of thousands of Georgia voters.
"This is inviting people to interfere with the rights of voters," Andrea Young, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, said of the language in the new bill. "This is so reminiscent of any White person being able to say, 'That Black person can't vote.' "

end of quote

That literally gives every white GA the right to disqualify the vote of any number of Black GA they wish.

[qazplm135]

62. welp it probably ain't passing

so basically you are saying, everyone give up, it's all over.

[dsc]

64. We need to do whatever it takes to get Manchin and Sinema to pass this law

and not let it be filibustered. If it takes moving the entire FBI to Charleston WV and giving Sinema the title to the Grand Canyon in perpetuity then so be it.

[qazplm135]

65. and they aint budging

so then what?

That's the problem with apocalyptic statements.

[Ligyron]

39. We have control of the legislature now and every minute counts.

Because in '22 we may well lose that control unless we start delivering for middle class Americans at least some of those many common sense things that almost everybody supports ... except Repug Congress people for some strange reason.

The Republican party used to have some decent, but misguided people in the past but they are little more than a criminal organization now, full of crazies and terrorists whose actions, or lack thereof, have caused the death of millions of their own constituents and impoverished many others.

They cheat, lie, steal and gaslight almost beyond the capacity to imagine.

It's a bad idea to even try and negotiate with terrorists.

[qazplm135]

63. that's all great

but the filibuster isn't going away, and this bill very likely isn't passing. I won't say never because you never know.
But given the very low likelihood, it seems to me that coming up with a plan B to deal with voter suppression would be wiser than putting all of our eggs in a basket that is likely to be bottomless.

[James48]

55. Two reasons

Why it is necessary.

#1. Republicans are too lazy to stay up all night for multiple filibuster attempts. You might get a few now and then, but they won’t do it night after night.

#2. They expose themselves when arguing over stupid things, and the American people will see them as they really are.

Just do it. Make the filibuster painful. Now.

[qazplm135]

61. I again don't see any evidence

that Republicans will be "too lazy" when a whole host of progressive bills could pass and all they have to do is set up a schedule where even half their delegation only has to spend one hour a night 2-3 times a week.

Americans see who they really are right now, and half of them like it.

[GregariousGroundhog]

8. Not really. The minority party could just indefinitely take turns talking for an hour each

I like Merkley's idea of requiring the minority party to keep 41 senators in the chamber at all times. I wonder if Manchin and Sinema could be brought on board by lowering that number to 33. I also wonder how it would compare in difficulty versus the current rules.

[ZonkerHarris]

31. all of it. Running a filibuster is supposed to shut down the Senate. Make it occupy all their time

so they can't fund raise and go on FOX and go to fancy lunches.
Make them be forefront to the people of this nation that they are blocking all senate business and why.
Their constant obstruction is free but there is supposed to be a cost in time and accountability

[LymphocyteLover]

42. Yes. It won't stop all filibusters but it will prevent the stupid easy ones

and even the talking ones may be useful.

[PSPS]

2. So, instead of president hannity, we now have president manchin

West Virginia holds veto power over any legislation now. 0.5% of the population gets to impose its will on the other 99.5%.

[FoxNewsSucks]

5. Yep

And the .5% is on the side of "hurt america" while the 99.5% is on the side of "help america and defeat fascists"

[hamsterjill]

14. Exactly.

Someone needs to have a talk with this jerk. He is obviously enjoying his moments of power - a little too much if you ask me. He needs to be brought in line.

If Schumer can’t, maybe they should ask Nancy to talk to him!!! LOL

[Celerity]

26. +10000

[LymphocyteLover]

43. what can we do? still better than having McConnell and the GOP rule the Senate

[riversedge]

59. sadly, you are right.

[alwaysinasnit]

4. This is precisely why we need to give DC statehood ASAP.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Do you think Joe Manchin would vote in favor of that?

It would certainly take him out of the spotlight.

[alwaysinasnit]

9. I doubt he would, but I have to believe there is some sort of leverage that can be used, a one-time

ace card. LBJ was a master of the art of strong-arming members of Congress, so maybe such lessons might have present-day value.

[PoliticAverse]

10. I dunno, he may not enjoy being the one everyone is always hating on now.

If there are 2 more Democratic Senators he can vote his "conscience" without taking heat.

[Texin]

15. I dunno, back in LBJ's day rethugs were different animals.

[alwaysinasnit]

16. Sigh, you're right. I just don't want to accept that 1 freakin' Dem senator has so much leverage

over the rest of his colleagues and even on Biden's policy agenda.

[Texin]

53. I don't get it either. Frankly, I never have and probably never will.

This guy is no Dem.

[groundloop]

54. He votes with Democrats around 75% of the time - that's much better than 0% if a GOPer had his seat

Granted, he's the worst Democratic Senator as far as voting with the Democratic Party, but he's still far batter than any GOPer Senator.

[vsrazdem]

22. LBJ had a lot of dirt on people and threatened to use it against his own members. He

was an SOB, but he did get things done

[oldsoftie]

37. I dont believe DC can become a state without changing the Constitution.

It provides a national capital that would not be part of a state or treated as a state, but an enclave under the exclusive authority of Congress. I doubt just a vote can change that

[alwaysinasnit]

38. Well, all I can say is that hope springs eternal.

[scipan]

44. What if just the federal buildings stayed under fed

control? I'm pretty sure the boundaries aren't in the Constitution.

[Polybius]

56. That itself will be filibustered

You would either have to eliminate/reform the filibuster, or find 60 votes.

[CrispyQ]

11. Isn't there some kind of pork project for WV, that we can dangle in front of Manchin? -nt

[PortTack]

12. Why is he backpedaling again? First it's no, then depends, now back to no?!!

Last edited Wed Mar 17, 2021, 06:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Hopefully the Dems can change his mind...or he will shift his position again

[2naSalit]

27. He fell off the media radar for a minute.

[FBaggins]

50. He isn't

It's just that a bunch of wishful thinkers wanted to read their desires into what he was saying.

"What part of 'never' don't you understand?"

[Fullduplexxx]

13. It's sad all that work by all the people to get a dem majority and Joe's shitting all over them

[bluestarone]

17. What i NEVER understand is this

I understand how the two senators feel BUT why discuss it? Why can't they just SHUT UP? No need to discuss it JUST because they are asked the fucking questions!! The MSM just want the BREAKING NEWS! Dam i just wish they would say from the get go that they have NOTHING to say at this time!!! So FRUSTRATING!

[vercetti2021]

20. Gonna hold my tongue

Because if I say what I think. I'm gonna get banned.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. Well, perhaps a few thousand of his vaccinated constituents marching in the streets will put it back

On the table...

It looks like it will be a long, hot summer for Joe and Kyrsten...

[Galraedia]

23. Manchin is a republican

Democrats need to focus on winning more senate seats and not support him when he's up for reelection in 2024. A democrat that wants to act like a republican should run as one. We have standards and I for one am not afraid of losing a closet republican. I'd much prefer to wipe the grin off of Manchin's face.

[redstateblues]

48. Until then we need Manchin to pass anything

As a red stater who would rather have a Democrat like Manchin than a Republican Marsha Blackburn we need to deal with it. My red state is not flipping any time soon-someday maybe-not in the next 3 cycles. Reality sucks sometimes

[FBaggins]

51. Did you notice a tiny little stimulus that just passed?

Think it would have even come up if McConnell were still running the Senate?

He isn't a Republican and we had better stop trying to convince him that he should become one.

[Miguelito Loveless]

28. So, Manchin got a better offer from the Right.

[FailureToCommunicate]

45. That was my first thought. Perhaps a VERY large promise of campaign $$?

[ancianita]

30. Schumer must force SineManchin unity by nuking the filibuster. Democracy in SB1 demands it.

What voters in 2022 will remember is that Schumer backed down on "bold."

America is bipartisan about the Biden legislative agenda. They won't care about no damn filibuster.

What they'll be pissed about is that not-bold Schumer let Biden's climate and infrastructure agenda stall. Democratic stall lost in 2010 because it was seen as weak, and will definitely be seen as weak on

-- Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment.
-- Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
-- Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act
-- Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020
-- Right to Organize Act of 2021
-- Presidential Transition Enhancement Act of 2019
-- CARES Act
-- Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
-- Bipartisan Background Checks Act
-- George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020

Schumer should not be any more afraid of McConnell than Republicans should be of Trump.

Bold means Schumer should be like "bring it on" and always, always remind Republicans that their 2022 jobs will depend on what they do for their bipartisan voting constituents by voting WITH Democrats.

Run the Democratic Majority Senate, Chuck. Losing is not an option.

[Polybius]

57. Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself said the ERA needs to start over from scratch

The deadline passed, there's no way the SC votes that it can be removed, since RGB said it can't.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/10/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-equal-rights-amendment/index.html

[BlueIdaho]

32. Manchin is really turning into a pain in the ass.

His showboating is beyond tedious and his stunts smack of self importance. Was he missing the day Republicans would have happily strung him up next to Pence?

[Ferrets are Cool]

33. Anyone else get the feeling that "he" is enjoying this "POWER" he now wields over the majority?

[yaesu]

34. Manch is just trying to be fair & statesman like, just like republicans were when they held Senate

[Jonah Ide]

36. DINO

And I ain't talking about the Flintstone's pet dinosaur!

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. And the people will put it back ON the table

Get ready for thousands of vaccinated constituents to hit the streets this summer, Manchin.

He has no idea what kind of pressure is coming for him...

[Jonah Ide]

41. DINO

And I ain't talking about the Flintstones' pet dinosaur!

[NewHendoLib]

46. yep. DINO.

[Ace Rothstein]

52. Breyer needs to retire before Manchin does something stupid.

[Deminpenn]

58. A few days ago during an MSNBC segment, Schumer

Manchin is part of his 's 4 person leadership teamalong with Sanders, Warner and Warren. Doubtful, then, Manchin is speaking off the cuff.