That clip crack me up
Already 15 years ago , foxnews with fake news .
Religion and sodomize lol ….

a lot of the policies that you think are good in florida(other than the abortion), are because they were passed in state questions on ballots AGAINST the will of Desantis and republicans.. now a majority of people might be too stupid to see that, but i guess that's generally what republicans count on anyway

an obvious example is the allowing previously incarcerated individuals to vote state question. the gop has been fighting tooth and nail to actively prevent the will of the people.

dude won by less than half of one percent over a candidate that was being investigated by the FBI..

I only searched the first one and suffice it to say the GOP found many ways to skin that cat regardless.

this is not about specific pieces of legislation blocked but long term, election planks. Things that are core to the parties identity and the GOP having the ability to get around the filibuster but allowing themselves to be purposely stymied.

I am asking for an equivalent of Mitch saying 'we think the sanctity of the august tradition of the filibuster is too important', 'we respect the role of the Parliamentarian too much', thus 'we will not use or pursue the tools we have to try and push our election planks while we have the power.'

Do you feel your examples fit any of that in the ways the Dem's surrender when presented with the thinnest of excuses.

I not sure that I understand your question, but limiting abortion to the maximum extent possible has been a GOP party plank for a long time. And limiting abortion was the sole purpose of one of the pieces of legislation that I mentioned.

No one is reluctant to remove the filibuster because it is an "august tradition." People are reluctant to remove the filibuster because of a concern about what will happen when power shifts in Congress.

If the Republicans immediately invoke the nuclear option after gaining a majority in the midterms, then it obviously will prove that Democrats should have eliminated the filibuster during the first two years of Biden's administration. Is that what you are expecting Republicans to do?

Firstly i will look to find the Dem politicians quote about the importance of the 'August tradition of the filibuster being something they needed to consider and protect' when asked by a reporter if the Dem's should be looking to get rid of or carve out voting rights, from the filibuster. Clearly that Dem politician thought voting rights for POC was important but not important enough to mess with the august tradition of the filibuster. A man has got to have his priorities.


Second I am not saying the filibuster cannot stop things. IT can. I am asking if the GOP actually had a real chance of doing away with it when it was blocking a priority and if they choose to honour the filibuster instead of flexing their power to try and get rid of it?

If they had no path, then I don't consider that the GOP conceding anything. With the Dem's they have a path but it would require they WHIP the party and put real pressure on their members to vote and support the party planks they ran on in the election. Maybe they fail but at least they tried. The Dems never try. They always surrender. Parliamentarian said no. Ok pack it up and head home. Manchin and SInema said no. Ok pack it up and head home.


i don't buy that the Dems are worried about the GOP might do if the filibuster is gone as the GOP gets done what they need regardless. I honestly think the Dems fear is they would then have no excuses to hide behind and would actually have to deliver on their populist promises that get them elected.

Again i would ask project for me the big GOP fears you think they would focus on with no filibuster that are outside the areas the filibuster does not impact. I am sure there are some but I can't think of them but i can think of a long list for the Dems. So even if on just a balance of benefits, I think the Dems get far more benefit with it gone than the GOP so based on that alone the Dems should want it gone and the GOP should not.

@Rococo I know you have way more faith in the GOP than i do and you think they would not just do away with the filibuster if it stood in their way of their priorities but here is what a former top Republican thinks.

You may be able to find some sort of silly quote about the filibuster from a Democratic politician. People say stupid stuff. That doesn't mean that Democrats as a group are doing anything other than a grim risk/reward calculation.


I don't know what you mean. When Republicans control Congress, they have the same opportunity to exercise a nuclear option that Democrats have when they control Congress.

My views have nothing to do with faith in the GOP. I have no faith in the GOP.

I also never predicted that Republicans would refrain from exercising a nuclear option if they gained control of Congress. I simply noted that Republicans thus far have refrained from doing so.

If enough Republicans in a Republican-controlled Congress decided that it was in the party's interest to get rid of the filibuster, then I'm sure it would happen.

It's a pure risk/reward calculation for both sides of the aisle. And so far, both sides have done that calculation fairly conservatively. But that could change.

Read the Citizens United case and get back to us.

Evangelicals have been working to overturn roe for four decades at least. Winning won't slow them down. They want a Taliban style theocracy and will keep going til they get it.

The religious right need to be treated as the terrorists they are.

cant wrap my head around why the court was just super ok with reversing roe v wade, I guess Ill read the opinion but...like what the **** LOL it was fine the way it was just..what the **** there was just no need to re look at it

+1 imho .

Because they could get most of what they wanted accomplished without doing it then (they didn't really want to outlaw abortion in the whole country).

However, I am pretty sure they will now get rid of the filibuster the next time it will be beneficial to them (Republicans holding presidency and both houses of Congress, but fewer than 60 seats in the Senate).

Yeah, I know, corporations are people and money is speech. I don't like that ruling, but it still doesn't seem to be as convoluted to me as due process equals a right to privacy and a right to privacy means abortion is legal, but only for a certain number of weeks.

Reid got rid of the filibuster for all judicial confirmations except for the Supreme Court. Then McConnell got rid of it for the Supreme Court.

They won't do it then, because it wouldn't do them any good to get rid of the filibuster while there is still a Democratic president who can veto anything they pass with less than a 2/3 majority.

Some political action group needs to again find a way to challenge Citizens United and get it before this Court.

Expose their blatant hypocrisy as they do not look to the COnstitution to find backing for that position and instead insert an opinion to further rights and protections to Corporations that were never intended from an Originalist view.

It should be fun to see the contortions in their logic. And if the left and Dems were strategic they would move on this quickly before more GOP start pushing the other ones Clarence called for, that they will knock down one by while just citing the 'logic' they used to tear down RvW as some sort of principled absolute they will follow no matter how many precedents it destroys and while claiming this has nothing to do with their personal beliefs.

Make them ignore their prior reasons while finding 'reasons' to extend protections and rights regardless in this case, while going right on to the others and undoing them. I mean, I think they would and without shame, but might as well get it on the record.

^^^ I guess they already kind of tipped that hand though re the NY 2nd Amendment case and throwing out the 100 year old gun law that merely 'regulated the militia' as they took the States rights away to do so and imposed one National standard while saying for RvW it is the States who should get to decide.

...If enough Republicans in a Republican-controlled Congress decided that it was in the party's interest to get rid of the filibuster, then I'm sure it would happen...Agreed. And this is what matters.

The Dem's in the same spot simply do not think it is in the party's interest even when they have the power. Voting rights, abortion, etc, just not in the party's interest.

So the Dem's are not holding to the august tradition of the filibuster hoping that norm will prompt the GOP to do the same if they have the power to get around it and enact an agenda they want. You know, I know, and they know that would not deter the GOP simply because the Dems held to the norm. The GOp would laugh at the Dems and think them suckers that they did not use their bullets 10 times hoping the GOP would then not use it once.



People need to remember that In 2005, Republicans rational for using the Nuclear Option and get around the filibuster was that the Democrats obstructed the approval of the president's nominees in violation of the intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Read the bolded again.

Imagine the gal, the Dems merely pushed back on some (not all) of the nominees while letting others proceed and 'BOOM', **** the filibuster the GOP says. This is obstruction the INTENT of the US Constitution.

And when the same GOP says to Obama, **** the INTENT of the US Constitution, your nominees will not pass, and they run a completely obstructionist agenda under a principle that when Dems get rule their only role is to block the majorities entire agenda, even if they agree with parts of it ....what do the Dems do?

They hand ring over the august tradition and value of the filibuster and find a way to do nothing.


Ned Stark V Cersei Lannister is the appropriate pop culture comparison.

Yup.

And more so the way Rococo worded that, it sounds like he thinks it is the Dem's sticking to the norm that would be the sticking point as to why the GOP would not proceed and just blow thru it.
He has tempered that after though, but that is a very common argument on the Dem side of the ledger. That the 'norm' is needed protection for a future, if and when the GOP has the POTUS, House and Senate next with the power to get around the filibuster. The Dems think...

'whew... thank goodness we never used that power as now the GOP will follow our norm an uphold the norm. The filibuster is now our only tool to stop the GOP delivering key election planks and stymie them for this term, and thank goodness the GOP will honour that august tradition and accept failing to deliver their agenda as just a cost of keeping to tradition and norms. just as we did.'

But in fairness i think the Washington Post missed the point.

The Dem's are doing something inline with their interests and did so decisively pretty much immediately...

Move to amend and poclad are two groups fighting against corporations having constitutional rights that rely on membership fees and donations.

I don't understand your point. In 2005, many Republicans wanted to invoke the nuclear option with respect to judicial nominations, but ultimately it didn't happen. In 2013, Democrats actually invoked the nuclear option with respect to judicial nominations other than nominations to the SCOTUS. In other words, Democrats did in 2013 what many Republicans wanted to do in 2005. Then, in 2017, Mitch McConnell invoked the nuclear option with respect to SCOTUS nominations to get Gorsuch confirmed.

I'm not sure how this history leads you to conclude that Democrats are more committed to preserving the filibuster than Republicans are. I'm not suggesting that Democrats are less committed to preserving the filibuster than Republicans. I just think both sides look at the filibuster in a similar way.

As an aside, eliminating the filibuster with respect to judicial nominations has been a mixed bag at best for Democrats. When Trump took office, there were a mountain of open spots in the judiciary. With no meaningful check on his authority, Trump was able to ram an unprecedented number of terrible judges through the process.

Correct. In my own mind, I was thinking ahead to the next presidential election.

Well i guess it comes down to if you hold a belief that this group of Republicans, as it exists today, would hold to self imposed limits, restrained by a handful of other Republicans or if things have changed.

You seem to be holding more to a view that says 'history informs you that Dems are more ruthless and willing to do things to drive things thru where the Republicans have shown a HISTORY of restraint' to inform your position and statements. I think things have radically changes and sure, we will see how that plays out, I guess, in the future if/when the GOP has the power to push something thru and only a filibuster prevents them.

My view currently is that the filibuster on balance serves really only as a restraint on populist Dem agenda issue. It is very effective tool for the GOP to rule as the minority even when Dem's have majority rule in all 3 branches. That even if there are some periphery items the GOP would love to push thru, that are stopped by the filibuster, they understand those losses are well worth the trade off to stop a wider Dem agenda when needed. This is specifically because their biggest two priorities are exempt from the filibuster (tax cuts and other budget items and SC nominees) so why try to gain the last inch, that would give the Dems a mile.

My position is that the Dems should happily take the mile and concede the inch. That they get far more value from the filibuster being gone than the GOP would and as such it is a 'good trade' for the Dems.