#FILIBUSTER

[thashining]

Once Again....

[originalleftist]

Democrats plan major "overhaul" of the filibuster.

FUCKING YES!

This is the absolutely minimum to have a functioning, non-fascist government. It is the first and most essential step to breaking Republican obstructionism, and thus for judicial reform, gun control, abortion rights, voting rights.. pretty much any major reform you can name is on the table, once the filibuster is out of the way. And basically none of them are until then.

Granted, it's not a total removal of the filibuster, just changing the rules to make a filibuster on "major bills" require actual effort. But it will still seriously help address the obstruction tactics, if we get this.

With Manchin and Sinema on the way out, this is now a real possibility, one Democrats are running on- and SO MUCH becomes possible once it's done.

Honestly, it's worth voting Blue for this alone- seriously this could move SO many progressive dreams into the realm of political possibility.

Edit: Corrected to note that Sinema is definitely out- she announced in March that she's not seeking reelection. Thank God.

[groovygrub]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mackenzie Krumme and Jonah Beleckis at WPR:

Vice President and Democratic nominee for president Kamala Harris told WPR’s “Wisconsin Today” on Monday that she supports ending the filibuster to restore Roe v. Wade to protect abortion rights nationally. “I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe,” Harris said in an interview that aired Tuesday morning. “And get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do.” In 2022 as vice president, Harris said she supported ending the filibuster to protect reproductive and voting rights. As a candidate for president in 2019 when she was a U.S. senator, she also said she would support ending the filibuster to pass environmental legislation known as the Green New Deal.

The filibuster can be an attempt to delay or block a vote for a piece of legislation. Eliminating it would effectively allow the U.S. Senate to pass some legislation with a simple majority rather than meeting a 60-vote threshold.  Harris’ interview with “Wisconsin Today” comes days after her fourth campaign visit to the state.

YES!!! Kamala Harris supports eliminating the filibuster to restore abortion rights that were stripped away by Roe v. Wade being overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Harris made those comments on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Wisconsin Today on Monday.

From the 09.23.2024 edition of Wisconsin Public Radio's Wisconsin Today:

[dont-lick-my-foot]

Senate silver lining(?):

It’s hard to think positive when thinking about the new Republican majority in the Senate, but one good thing is that they will not have a filibuster-proof majority. A filibuster-proof majority would have been 60, but even if the last two senate races to be called end in favor of the republicans, they will only be at 55. There are two independents, but one of them is Bernie Sanders, so I would certainly say we can trust him to vote in the best interest of the people! I honestly don’t know anything about the other independent (Angus King of Maine), so I can’t speak to how he might vote.

Why we should care about their lack of a filibuster-proof majority: anything the republicans want to try to push through will face the extra barrier of the potential for the dems to filibuster tf out of everything. Normally, the filibuster is not something we tend to think of as a good thing since it can reduce Congress’s productivity, but after this election, it could really help us out as one protection against any bs legislation the GOP tries to pass.

Basically, I’m saying we can hope that their lack of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate can help protect us until midterms in 2026. I can’t say how much or how little it’ll help, but it’s something to keep in mind.

Either way, please stay strong, besties. Keep living, even if it’s simply out of spite. You were meant to outlive that wrinkly orange felon. I believe in you. You can do this. 💙

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Kamala Harris promises to carve out exception to filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade

In a significant policy announcement (and departure from Joe Biden’s policy), Kamala Harris promised to support an exception to the Senate filibuster to allow passage of a bill codifying the protections for reproductive rights previously recognized in Roe v. Wade. See Politico, Kamala Harris backs ending filibuster for abortion rights legislation. [Note to experts on the filibuster: I am using the term in the popular sense, to describe a cloture vote.]

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the filibuster and what it means to create an exception to the Senate rule. Indeed, the Politico headline, above, misstates what Kamala Harris proposed. She did not propose to “end” the filibuster for abortion rights legislation, but merely to create an exception in a rule that is riddled with exceptions.

Before discussing the hypocrisy that surrounds the opposition to creating an exception to the filibuster, let’s skip to the most important part first: Despite popular belief to the contrary, it is possible to create an exception the filibuster with only 51 votes in the Senate. The complicated procedure is known as the “nuclear option,” but has been used in the recent past. Mitch McConnell created an exception to the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations when he wanted to jam Trump's reactionary justices through the Senate nomination process.

So, the important point is that Kamala Harris can restore the protections of Roe v. Wade with a 50-member Democratic caucus (which would include independents who caucus with Democrats). But for safety’s sake, Democrats should aim for 52 or 53 votes to pass the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal legislation. We must therefore focus our efforts on defending every seat (Senators Tester (MT) and Brown (OH)) and capturing new seats (Colin Allred (TX) and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL)).

Let’s get some common misconceptions out of the way. See, the excellent article by The Brennan Center, The Case Against the Filibuster | Brennan Center for Justice (October 30, 2020).

The filibuster rule is NOT in the Constitution. Indeed, there is a strong argument that it is unconstitutional.

The Senate filibuster rule did not exist for the first 129 years after the Constitution was ratified. Even then, it was used for the first several decades of its existence to speed the passage of legislation, not to block it.

The filibuster does not “protect the rights of the minority.” To the contrary, the Constitution presumes that action by the Senate requires only a simple majority, with exceptions for super-majorities for treaties, convictions after impeachment, and overriding vetoes by the President The filibuster denies the rights of the majority expressly recognized by the Constitution.

The Senate is designed to be an anti-democratic institution by giving disproportionate representation to small states. Layering on an additional undemocratic feature (the filibuster) grants extreme power over all legislation to 20% of the population. The filibuster thus does violence to the vision of the Framers of the Constitution.

Exceptions to the filibuster were recently created in 2013 and 2017 to allow federal judicial nominations, including Supreme Court justices, to be enacted by a simple majority. Budget bills are not subject to the filibuster.

Since 1960, the increasing use of the filibuster has drastically reduced the productivity of the Senate. See the report by The Brennan Center.

In short, the filibuster is an antidemocratic, unconstitutional, productivity-killing tool that has been used to suppress voting rights and deny protection of rights to American citizens in the minority by exalting the partisan interests of the political party in the minority in the Senate—which was never the intention of the Framers.

Kamala Harris’s proposal to create an exception to the filibuster is a major policy announcement that will help move women closer to their rightful status as equal citizens under the Constitution. That should have been the headline story today. But unbelievably, the NYTimes ran with this headline: Manchin Won’t Endorse Harris After Her Call to End Filibuster Over Abortion Rights.

What?! The Times subordinates the major policy announcement that will promote the equality of all women to the political story of a has-been Senator who won’t be around to vote on Kamala Harris’s proposal on the filibuster. Shameful and disgraceful journalism at its worst! You really must make an effort to be that bad. The Times doesn’t care about women’s equality but is hot and bothered about what Joe Manchin is thinking. Did I say shameful and disgraceful? Unbelievable!

And for everyone who will write to me to say that the reporters don’t write the headlines, the Times editors and publishers are responsible for the headline writers. Apparently, the editors and publishers want trashy, clickbait headlines. Did I say shameful and disgraceful?

Trump has crossed another line

Trump gave a speech on Monday that broke a new barrier: He blew past racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic barriers to plumb the depths of “creepiness.” In addressing the issue of reproductive rights, Trump appeared to be trying to “hypnotize” women by telling them that everything was fine, that their eyelids were growing heavy, and that they will cluck like chickens when he is elected. (For those who missed my tone, that last sentence used the literary device of sarcasm.)

See Talking Points Memo, Behold Trump’s New Creeptastic Quotes On Abortion. See also Aaron Rupar, Public Notice, Trump's pitch to women is getting weirder and weirder.

As noted in TPM and Public Notice, Trump said the following in an effort to convince women that he isn’t responsible for denying them reproductive freedom:

“I always thought women liked me. But the fake news keeps saying women don’t like me.” “You will no longer be abandoned, lonely, or scared.” “You will no longer be in danger.” “You will be protected, and I will be your protector.” “Women will be happy, healthy, confident and free.” “You will no longer be thinking about abortion.”

Trump's comments are patronizing, offensive, weird, and creepy. When added to the comments of JD Vance and GOP candidate for the Senate Bernie Moreno (that women over 50 shouldn’t care about reproductive rights), it is incontestable that the GOP platform is anti-woman. But that fact has been clear for some time.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[aunti-christ-ine]

Popular vote, if done correctly, is fair majority rule. It is not determined state-by-state; it's counted one person, one vote, throughout the entire country (as if the states did not exist, as if the country was all one state, and our votes were not separated into bunches). FAIRNESS.

Electoral College

vs.

Popular Vote

Popular vote is not "mob rule" as so many have been brainwashed into believing.

🇺🇲 ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE 🇺��

[zoop-lizor]

filibu ster(warning: bright color)

yea

awesome

[sucre333]

(source: Pirates of America by Alexandre O. Exquemelin)

François l'Olonnais.

17th century, pirate and filibuster. Born in France, Les Sables d'Olonne. 1630.

Very cruel pirate!!.

[thepopculturearchivist]

LITERARY DIGEST, March 19, 1927. Adjusting for inflation, Babe Ruth's 1927 salary was equivalent to approximately $1.25 million in 2024 money. He earned his keep by hitting 60 home runs as the Yankees cruised to a World Series championship.

[comparatorclock]

New idiom: "bro's thoughts are controlled by a mouse in a hamster wheel" - aka, You are repeating yourself, stop being a spammy filibuster you goober!

[liskantope]

Very lightly skimming (and mostly skipping over the lengthy quoted excerpts of) Strom Thurmond's over-24-hour filibuster opposing the (already incredibly weakened) 1957 Civil Rights Law is quite entertaining, albeit in a rather grim way. One interesting and bemusing aspect of glancing through official records of Senate proceedings like this is observing the carefully formatted language used in the Senate chamber, for instance the avoidance of directly addressing each other but instead addressing whomever was presiding over the Senate (in this case, during large parts of the 24-hour period, probably Vice President Richard Nixon, who is nevertheless addressed as "Mr. President" meaning "President of the Senate"). It wasn't a 24-hour monologue because a number of times other senators, after requesting permission in the required stilted language, engaged in back-and-forths with Thurmond which most often took the form of questions sympathetically worded so as to hand Thurmond further ammunition.

Here is an excerpt from some nine hours in illustrating the third-person-centered style of dialogue:

Mr. Knowland: I did listen to the earlier part of the Senator's address. I was in the Chamber at the time. I must confess that for several hours I did get some sleep and was able to freshen up and change my clothes, and I am now back in the Chamber. Mr. Thurmond: I notice the Senator looks very fresh at about 6:15 in the morning. Mr. Knowland: Yes. I am glad to be here with the Senator.

Many hours later, by which time Thurmond's voice must have become much hoarser, another exchange between the same two men that takes passive-aggressiveness to a whole new level:

Mr. Knowland: Mr. President, I do not want the Senator to strain his voice but I do have some responsibilities as minority leader. I do not think the Senator is making any motion, but I should at least like to know what is going on in the Senate Chamber. Mr. Thurmond: Mr. President, I yield for a question if the Senator has a question. Mr. Knowland: My question is, would the Senator speak up? I do not want him to strain his voice, but I should like him to speak a little louder so I should be sure no motions are being made or anything of that sort. I do have some responsibility here. Mr. Thurmond: I suggest the Senator move closer to me. Mr. Knowland: Under the rules of the Senate, which are now being strictly enforced, both Senators being in their respective seats, and this happening to be my seat as the minority leader, I urge my request of the Senator. Mr. Thurmond: We might get unanimous consent to allow the Senator to come closer to me if he wishes. I do not think my colleagues will raise any point. There is an excellent seat here, I may say to the Senator. Mr. Knowland: I am very well satisfied with the seat to which I am assigned. Mr. Thurmond: Mr. President, I continue to read...

Just a bit earlier than this last excerpt, some of the dynamic between Thurmond and Long, a Louisiana senator who was clearly making it his job to throw softball "questions" at Thurmond while Thurmond took extra care to enforce that they were actually "questions".

Mr. Long: Is it not, therefore, true that insofar as the right of a citizen to be tried by jury for a crime is concerned, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson would have agreed 100 percent that the freedoms guaranteed Americans under their form of government included the right to be tried by a jury of their own neighbors, in the area where the crime was committed, in the event they were accused of committing a crime? Mr. Thurmond: I can yield only for a question. I shall be glad to express myself after the Senator has concluded. Let the Senator ask any question he wishes. I yield for a question. Mr. Long: Is it not correct to state that...

And shortly later in the same exchange, where Long's "questions" become more bemusingly a vehicle for him to make his own points:

Mr. Long: Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield for a further question? Mr. Thurmond: I yield for a further question. Mr. Long: Is the Senator aware of the fact that Senator Borah's statue is just outside the main entrance of the Senate chamber, immediately outside the door? Mr. Thurmond: That is correct. I see it every time I go through the door.

[screechingsandwichhologram]

do other countries have filibusters. like how in America a senator can just stand up there and talk about whatever the fuck they want (not even related to the topic) just to delay the vote. like when ted cruz read green eggs and ham

[yahoo201027]

Day in Fandom History: April 14…

Archer, along with Charlene and Calderon, improvise with a plan to escape their prison cells and must join the rebels following both Calderon’s dethronement and Cyril becoming the new president. Part 3 of the four-part Season 5 finale, “Archer Vice: Filibuster”, premiered on this day, 10 Years Ago.