Lindsay Graham vows to uphold the filibuster. Can Republican senators get two more votes for this

The Senate will be 52-48 with gop control. Assuming all 48 Democrats vote to uphold the filibuster along with Graham that means two more Republicans are needed to avoid changing the rules by a majority vote.

I’m assuming that the filibuster will stand. For one, it lets the Republican blame the Democrats when Trump fails to uphold his promises (golly we Republicans wanted to do xyz, but the Democrats filibustered. The Democrats pulled that same line against Republicans for the last eight years to placate progressives). For another I’m sure some of them are aware that someone like Trump needs checks on his power. There were something like 16 gop senators who didn’t support Trump in the election. I’m sure a few realize Trump needs checks and balances.

So who are two more gop senators who will likely uphold the filibuster?

These 16 GOP senators can simply vote against any Trump legislation they don’t like–while getting rid of the filibuster allows the Senate to pass Trump legislation these 16 GOP Senators do like.

The democrats only have themselves to blame … you can’t have it both ways.

ABC news link from November 21, 2013

Democrats changed the filibuster rules because of judicial appointments being blocked for years.

That is not the same as total abolition of the filibuster to make it easier to destroy medicare and social security.

So the filibuster should be retained to keep legislative programs, but stay gone for judicial and executive nominees? Is that your argument?

The filibuster rules should change, the electoral college and two term limit for presidents should also be eliminated, but it’s a dumb idea to do it as a reaction to some recent event. Let them debate and decide what to do and implement any changes at some point in the future. And even at that they’ll probably screw things up.

If memory serves, you wanted Harry Reid to abolish the filibuster on day one in 2009. Sauce for the goose…

Hey, the people have spoken! Sorta. Kinda.

Democracy works best when the majority party has both the memory of having been in the minority and the certain knowledge that they will be again before too many more turns of the wheel. Graham has been around long enough to know this.

But on the other hand, there was that H.L. Menken quote: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

There are 10-12 Democratic Senators from red or purple states up for reelection in 2018. Don’t assume.

I would prefer an up or down vote on nominees of the President. For legislation I’m not so sure - I’d generally prefer gridlock so filibusters help that happen.

For lifetime appointees, like SCJ, I’d like the minority to be able to filibuster. That’s not partisanship talking; I’d prefer that even if Democratic president/Senate.

I would humbly suggest that if a nominee for SCOTUS can’t get a near unanimous vote you’re nominating the wrong person.

This.

Even in our current atmosphere of genial bipartisan cooperation I think that might be difficult.

40 votes in the senate should be able to eliminate the federal judiciary through attrition? is that your argument?

Do you think any of those 10-12 Democrats are going to vote to throw away the ongoing bargaining power that the filibuster offers them? How does that help them win re-election? What’s the campaign slogan, “Vote for me, I voted that one time to let the Republicans decide everything like I thought you wanted?”

They can vote to throw out the filibuster now, and be toothless for at least two years, or keep it, and bargain to break filibusters in the future in return for political favor.

No. I am completely agnostic on the matter. My only argument is that the rules need to stay the same no matter who is in power.

I must have missed where Wesley made any statement in favor of anything. Could you helpfully bold that part of his post that you quoted?

Reid’s 2013 vote allowed lifetime appointments to be confirmed with only a majority. All federal judges are lifetime appointments.