Who here thinks that if the legislative filibuster isn't repealed

[standingtall]

republicans are going to let Biden pass even one bit of legislation?
And if we repeal the legislative filibuster and don't expand the courts republicans aren't going to run to the Supreme to have legislation by Democrats overturned?
And if republicans can't get what they want with a 6 to 3 advantage on the courts who believes they wont just add more Supreme Court seats until they get exactly what the want the next time they control the Government?

We have been on the procedural defensive far to long and look where has gotten us it past time to go on the offensive.

[Mike Niendorff]

1. If the Dems win the Senate:

The filibuster is stone cold dead.

You can write those words in Mitch McConnell's blood.


MDN

[regnaD kciN]

2. But does it even matter...

...in the current likely situation, which is that any legislation we may hope to pass through doing so will simply be struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS we'll have in place at that time? They won't need any sort of reason, and won't even need Roberts to side with them.

[Mike Niendorff]

3. Of course it matters!

You do understand that the number of Justices on the SCOTUS is set by **Congress**, right?

The exact federal law is: 28 USC 1.

Memorize that reference.

The last time a president threatened to expand the Court was FDR in 1937.

It worked.

This time, it should not be just a threat.

The current makeup of the Court is illegitimate.

28 USC 1 should be revised to add 4 additional Justices.

And I would certainly also support expanding the district and appellate courts as well.

It's long overdue at this point.


MDN

[DarthDem]

4. I respect ya, but . . .

That's not reasonable. Any legislation??? I doubt that very much. The conservatives have had a majority on the SCOTUS for years. Laws signed by Clinton and Obama were still enacted and passed constitutional muster. Plus, a constitutional challenge is simply not possible for every piece of legislation if Congress really starts acting like a functioning federal legislature under Democratic control. Finally, if SCOTUS does start overturning everything, that's all the cover Democrats in Congress would need to add more justices.

[standingtall]

10. Nah it is reasonable Clinton was a different era

What happen to Obama on the ACA when republicans to it Supreme Court? It was upheld by a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision and now the Supreme Court is going to be 6 to 3 in favor of republicans. So Roberts swing votes wont matter.

[kentuck]

7. And Mitch knows it.

He would have no power in the Minority if the filibuster is gone.

[Zak112234]

5. We should be careful

Changing the executive and judicial appointments from a 60 vote minimum to simple majority wasn't an idea that aged well for us....

Yes, expanding the court might be an easy answer for the immediate issue, but what happens down the line when another Trump shows up and gets a large number of appointments?
I doubt we could get away with just restocking the court every time the other side has a significant majority

[moose65]

6. That's not how it works

Republicans can’t just run to the Supreme Court if they don’t like a law passed by Democrats. There has to be a case filed and it has to work its way up to them. If Democrats get to appoint a lot of lower-court judges, that will slow the process even more.

[chriscan64]

9. This is a good point worth considering.

Even if these cases do get to them, the result is not as automatic as one might think. We tend to view the Justices to be just as hyper-partisan as the presidents and senators that install them, but it is not that simple, at least not yet. Look at the 7-2 votes on Trump's absolute immunity from state or congressional subpoenas. Legislation signed by Biden won't necessarily be judged to be unconstitutional simply because it's Biden that signed it, explained away with legal mumbo jumbo.

That said, this court is still capable of some whoppers like Citizens United where corporations are people and money is speech. If Trump gets to ram a justice through before he loses, thing will not be as they could or should be, but that does not mean that the new president and congress will be powerless.

[standingtall]

12. The fact that even 2 voted to give Trump absolute immunity from State or congressional subpoenas are

to alarm you. If republicans got two of those two on the court you think they couldn't get six more?

[standingtall]

13. The Supreme Court has the authority to

expedite a case to them like the 2000 election.

[flamin lib]

8. I don't want to completely dismantle the filibuster but it should be made an onerous option.

Texas believe it or not could be a model. Filibuster as long as you want but you must stand in the well, no breaks of any kind, no leaning on the podium for support (which means you can't even touch it lest the opposition cite it as taking support) and the speech must be germane to the issue at hand (ya' can't read Dr Seuss). Ala Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

The rules have changed to the point that a filibuster can be phoned in.

[roamer65]

11. On the filibuster, I'm a strict constitutionalist.

It’s NOT in the Constitution, so get rid of it.