Why doesnt the senate gop destroy the last vestiges of the fillibuster to fund their wall?

[bullimiami]

[spanone]

1. because they know that they will be giving that power to democrats to use when they take over

[cynatnite]

2. Yep, and Dems taking the senate is looking more likely with each passing minute. n/t

[unblock]

3. exactly. they can easily see a time, after 2022 or maybe even 2020,

when democrats control the white house, the house, and the senate.

at that point, the legislative filibuster is all they have (outside of the supreme court).

[Me.]

4. Look At What Happened With The House After This Last Election

20/20 has lots of Con Senators up for re-election and a much smaller number of Dems. If Dems take the Senate and are not held back by the 60 vote rule they can pass whatever they want. Goose and Gander scenario.

[calimary]

8. Yep. There's far less turf for Democrats to defend, next round.

The numbers, and prospects, are WAY better for our side. Things don’t stack up as well or as easy for the CONS in 2020. They’re quite vulnerable, and I suspect that vulnerability will grow. We actually could take back the Senate. So at least that would stop any further court packing.

[Me.]

13. 21 Cons...12 Dems

[maxsolomon]

5. Filibuster rules are established at the start of the Congressional session

McConnell should have done it in 2017. He didn't.

[hatrack]

6. 11/3/20

That's why.

[dem4decades]

7. I heard they can't do it to a fiscal bill. True or not don't know.

[kysrsoze]

10. Apparently true. I've heard that repeated by multiple sources on Tv

[Hortensis]

11. Me too. It's illegal. I got the idea that a more detailed explanation

might include explanation of how something could be done yada-yada. That's just speculation, though, and short version for right now is it's illegal. Trump as usual having no idea of what he's talking about.

[brooklynite]

14. Understand that "they can't do it" because that's their rule...

The whole point of this debate is whether the Republicans would throw the current rules out.

[FBaggins]

9. There's a reasonable argument that they can't

The "nuclear" option involved an appeal of a parliamentary ruling that the filibuster rules applied to appointments. That was something of an open question since the Constitution arguably involves some action related to "advice and consent". They were essentially claiming that the Senate has the power to set its own rules, but not where they conflict with constitutional duties.

In such a case, the Senate itself determines the meaning of its own rules and a simple majority was sufficient.

It's arguable (and my personal position) that there is no way to interpret away the filibuster when it comes to legislation. The same process could be followed to try and "nuke" it... but I'd bet that a court would be willing step in and say "Congress is due great deference in interpreting their own rules, but that can't extend to directly contradicting the clear wording of those rules"

[Johnny2X2X]

12. They don't have the votes

At least a hand full would vote against it in the nuclear option.