I don’t know if this is possible, but if the Dems could change things so in order to filibuster, you have to actually FILIBUSTER, that might make it a less ubiquitous tool in the hands of the Pubbies. That might be the way to go. I would fully support that. Of course, they still have to contend with potential Trump vetoes (or Pence vetoes if Trump quits or gets kicked out). At least until 2021, assuming the Dems can pull off a WH win in 2020.
I’ve been in favor of that for a long time. Make the filibuster HARD. Not impossible, but not easy – make it take physical stamina, like it used to.
“Disrespecting the presidency?” I’m not persuaded it’s possible to do that to a degree that approaches how deeply the presidency was disrespected when the electorate ordered the EC to give it to the asshole who hates America so much that he’s trying to turn us into a third-world client state of USSR 2.0.
Except maybe when the electors themselves, said “Right-ho!”
I don’t know what HurricaneDitka is talking about but Reid violated Senate rules by refusing to let the ACA bill to be read in its entirety. I believe he blatantly and unapologitically lied about Mitt Romney’s tax situation.
Very possible, merely get rid of the procedural filibuster which is not an actual rule. And I likewise would support this and combine it with not excusing any of the filibustering party from duty so that they can be arrested and brought to the chambers and have to endure the filibuster just like the majority party.
Requiring the filibusterers to actually stand up and filibuster (I would add a “with the cameras rolling” requirement) would have the beneficial effects of limiting it to high-priority issues and publicly fixing responsibility for why nothing is being done.
The first sentence isn’t remotely true. As for the second sentence, why should anyone care what you believe?
That’s enough, Lance. Do not disparage other posters.
Look up what happened with the Sanders amendment. Also look up Reid and his rule change in the ACA bill that he even called a rule change that he later said wasn’t a rule change when Sen. DeMint told him that rule change needs a 2/3 vote.
People interested in Harry Reid’s ethics or the truth should care.
None of this supports the claims you made.
Not the Senate. Just McConnell and Grassley. And not out of principle or policy, just personal spite. There is no way of knowing what the Senate would have done, since the body was not permitted to engage in advice and consent per its Constitutional responsibilities. But the Senate did *not *deny a thing any more than they granted it.
“was not permitted to”? You make it sound like McConnell is so powerful that he can prevent a Senate hearing even when a majority of his colleagues want one, but I don’t think that’s right. He’s able to do what he does because he has the support of the majority, isn’t he?
You mean Grassley, and yes, committee chairmen do have that power.
You make it sound like he has the supreme power to get every member of his caucus to vote for or against whatever he tells them to. *That *view is what is not realistic.
You don’t have to try to defend everything your guys do, not if you want to maintain credibility for other topics. Some things simply are indefensible.