And that is why a talking filibuster is just as bad an idea is a procedural filibuster. We don’t need trials by combat; we don’t need legislation by marathon.
I look at it in the complete opposite light.
Max, I’m getting a bit confused if your hangup is that you want the rules to be followed or if you think there is inherent value in the talking filibuster.
Both: my hangup is that I want rules to be followed, (at least until there is no other option), but I also think there is value in a talking filibuster.
That was true in the past, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it weren’t true now. The filibuster is a structural bias in favor of smaller parties. So it helps the Republican Party, but not the Democratic Party. Of course, other structural biases help the Republican Party enough that sometimes the Democrats are a minority in a legislature, but it’s becoming very apparent that the filibuster is not helpful.
OK fair enough, I basically agree with Pleonast that it doesn’t really have inherent value but that might be a discussion for another day.
Yea, this reminds me of an old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. It might come true.”
I have no doubt that if a Republican majority wanted to ram something through, they would not hesitate to nuke the filibuster.
I would then be telling their advocates that it’s a bad idea and they are being short-sighted as well. It’s ironic how seemingly neither side can see this when they have the power to change things…that, eventually, the worm will turn and it will be them in the minority position with the other party trying to ram something through and no ability to do anything about it because you shot yourself in the foot when and took that tool down.
The Democrats hate the filibuster so much, and think Russians are so dangerous, that they just used the filibuster to block sanctions against Russia:
If the filibuster was gone, the Republicans and five moderate Democrats would have defeated the Biden administration.
Are you sure that’s what you want?
Take it you’ve never heard of a veto?
Yeah, Biden could veto it. But the filibuster protected him from having to domso and looking weak to Putin.
Okay, so you just moved the goalposts halfway 'round the world on that one.
There is also the fact that it would almost certainly never pass the House. That would also “protect” him. Not to mention the fact that if there were no filibuster, the Dems who voted along with the Republicans would have been much less likely to, as currently, that was more or less a meaningless vote. If there had actually been consequence to it, they may very well have voted differently.
Then there is the odd idea that using the veto would make him look weak to Putin, that’s something you just pulled out of thin air. What even are you trying to go with that?
Since you got so very much wrong and have shown how very little you understand about the US govt, I won’t bother to comment on your rather vapid and silly commentary that you tried to poison the well with in your post, but speaking of things that make one look weak, that was a pretty weak attempt on your part.
BTW, is there a particular reason that you put up that quote without linking to where you got it?
Yes, this is what I want. Democratic priorities passing in exchange for a few things like this (which would likely be vetoed anyway) would be way, way worth it.
Agreed. His post is totally unconvincing as a criticism of the filibuster.
Aside, Sam_Stone was quoting from The Hill.