McConnell won't agree to the power sharing agreement unless Schumer agrees not to remove the

[still_one]

Filibuster.

Unless a power sharing agreement is finalized, I believe the old Senate rules are in force

My question is could we agree to let the filibuster stay intact just to let the power sharing agreement get done, and take over the majority, then later remove the filibuster when we need it to confirm judges and other things

We don’t need to remove the filibuster for the stimulus as I understand it, because we can resolve that through the process of reconciliation wi5h a simple majority

Please correct me if I am wrong, and what we can do to remove 5he filibuster if needed

[Eyeball_Kid]

1. Senate rules can change with a majority vote ON THE FIRST DAY OF SENATE BUSINESS.

After that, any Senate changes can only be done with a two-thirds majority.

[still_one]

14. Thanks, that's the problem

[raging moderate]

2. Could we go back to the traditional filibuster?

The traditional filibuster, as practiced for many years, required a Senator to keep standing and keep talking, in order to delay a vote. This new version seems like a travesty of the filibuster to me.

[Hortensis]

36. Not a travesty of delay, a way of imposing the will of a minority,

almost always hard-core conservatives, on the majority.

The version you're remembering was created by pro-slavery and other hard-core conservative senators to empower their minority, albeit not a lot. It seldom was able to block passage of bills supported by majorities.

What the beefed-up F became is anything but a travesty of that -- it's empowered unrepresentative minorities to subvert democracy and block legislation widely supported by most people. Federal support of Jim Crow was a minority creation. Most Americans opposed it.

The big change that put mostly southern senators in control was that to overcome the filibuster, a 2/3 majority vote would be required. And over time that's become increasingly impossible to achieve.

As for the benefit of going back rather than repealing, interesting, but ? Our founding fathers didn't include a filibuster to impede the will of the majority, but helping minority views be felt can be a good thing. Jimmy Stewart.

[StarfishSaver]

3. Can I just say ...

How refreshing it is to see you ask whether something is possible rather than demand that it be done without knowing anything about it?

I wish more people were as thoughtful about all of this.

[orangecrush]

6. Agree 100%

[still_one]

17. I give accolades to you Starfish for trying to keep things straight on what can or cannot

be done

[StarfishSaver]

32. Thanks - but it doesn't seem to be doing much good

[OhNo-Really]

4. The Republiwonts & Republiwonts were offered a chance

They refused.

Moving in. In these perilous, looming death times end fillinuster and SAVE LIVES & Livelihoods, end police Murder, SAVE the Planet.

We don’t need their votes.

The scorpion remains a Scorpion

Pervert can work our ass off electing more Congress members in 2022 for a super majority

[Pantagruel]

5. Pull a Mitch

a la SCOTUS nominations.

Agree to whatever works and simply change the rules as needed.Time to turn the tables.

[fleur-de-lisa]

7. I like your idea.

[Hav]

8. I think it has to be done like you described

It will be necessary to mirror the Repubs and remove the filibuster to get SC judges confirmed but besides that, it won't change. For those who don't like that, you certainly didn't complain about it when Repubs had the majority.

[msfiddlestix]

9. What we need is for a R to switch to D

Dollars to donuts that effort is/was underway very much on the QT. My instincts is going for Lisa Murkowsky from Alaska, and Mitt Romney Utah. Or Sasse from Nebraska, or Toomey from PA. I can't think of any other at the moment.

Just one of those, two would be better. Then we can end this bullshit on power agreement.

[StarfishSaver]

10. I like this idea and think it's workable (and probably under consideration)

The only downside I can think of is the complete meltdown that would ensue among folks on our side who won't appreciate nuance and long-term strategy. And of course, Schumer wouldn't be able to defend himself or explain what he was up to because that would defeat the purpose. So we'd spend quite a bit of time fighting off attacks from our own side.

But otherwise, I think that's a good option and possibly the only one.

[FBaggins]

11. Can't use reconciliation for the stimulus

The process takes far too long and can only be used once in each budget year.

[Silent3]

12. We should do what the Republicans would do.

Agree to anything to get what we want right now, then ignore what we agreed to as soon as that's to our advantage.

And tell the Republicans to suck it they don't like it.

[SheltieLover]

18. This!👆

[malaise]

13. Let me be kind

FUCK MocowMitch

That is all

[still_one]

20. Don't be shy Malaise, tell us what you really think

I agree

[malaise]

24. Check out this one on the one he enabled from JHB's cartoon thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14986079

[still_one]

27. Excellent. Thanks.

[LizBeth]

15. We do not have the votes to remove filibuster anyway. Manchin stated he would not vote for that.

[still_one]

22. True, but we won't know unless we try

[Turin_C3PO]

26. True but

it would be a mistake to put it into writing that removing the filibuster is off the table. Manchin and Sinema may be against removing it now but a year down the line after McConnell has obstructed Biden’s entire agenda, their tune may change.

[librechik]

16. In this situation, we've got to go nuclear. Anyone trust McConnell to honor any agreement w Dems?

What do we have to lose? We are fucked if we allow McConnell to call the shots.


Senator, tear down that flimsy crinoline-wearing antebellum wall!!







for the rest of eternity or




NOW

[SheltieLover]

19. What was the point of winning those 2 seats?

This sickens me

[theaocp]

21. All of this is irrelevant if your messaging falls on its face.

Complain about Republicans, Bitch McTurtle, or your own side, they all need a solid rollout of messaging. Start thinking like an opponent and prepare for those arguments.

[MiniMe]

23. I think the filibuster is already on ice for judges

How else could they have gotten Amy Coney Barrett through, or the crier. They sure didn't get 60 votes.

[Happy Hoosier]

25. How did the R's force through their rules changes?

And why can't we?

Time to play (as Chris Matthews used to say) Hardball.

[StarfishSaver]

28. McConnell controlled what went to the floor

Schumer can't exercise full control of the calendar until these issues are worked out.

[Happy Hoosier]

30. With all due respect....

What the fuck does THAT mean?

How does Schumer GET control, and how are these things "worked out."

From an outside perspective, it looks like the GOP is STILL exercising power, even when in the minority. Which appsrently we were incapable of doing? What the actual fuck?

[StarfishSaver]

33. I suggest you change the language you use with me if you'd like a response from me

[Happy Hoosier]

35. I'm expressing frustration.

I mean, again with all due respect, what you posted was completely useless. I've looked up what it takes to adopt a rules set, and I can't seem to find what allowed them to push us around that we can't turn right around on them.

[StarfishSaver]

37. At the beginning of every Senate session, the majority and minority organize themselves

including determining committee structures and processes, floor procedures, etc. This is pretty simple to do when one side has a clear majority. But when there's a 50-50 split, it's not as easy. Yes, the Democrats have the advantage because the Vice President can break ties, but the other side also has a lot of leverage. If they don't work out how they're going to proceed, it will be impossible to get anything done if the minority wants to get in the way. Moreover, while Democrats will have an advantage when it comes to certain floor votes, that doesn't translate into advantage in committees, which are 50-50.

You may have "looked what it takes to adopt a rules set," but it sounds like you don't understand it. If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to assume that Democrats are allowing themselves to be "pushed around."

Why do you assume that you are any more committed or stronger than the Democrats who are leading this process or if they aren't doing what you want, it must be because they are weak or stupid? Why can't you accept - especially after you've been told this repeatedly on this board - that there are good reasons that things are proceeding as they are instead of going straight to a kneejerk "Democrats are punks" default and cursing out anyone who tries to take the time to explain to you that that is not the case?

[Happy Hoosier]

38. I understand that 50-50 is not a clear majority....

and that we need EVERYONE on our side. But I don't understand what it takes, I guess. How fucked up does the country have to be for us to seize this moment. I guess if Manchin, or Sanders won't back Schumer then he has to play ball, but it pisses me off. It feels like whenever we have power, our sense of "fairness" prevents doing the things we need to do. And I'm not nearly as "left" as many here. I understand incrementalism. But we have two years. That's it. If we can't show that we are willing to govern, we will lose.

[dansolo]

29. Neuter the filibuster

Keep it, but make it far more difficult to use.

[Squinch]

31. Fuck him.

[BlueIdaho]

34. Mitch still thinks he runs the Senate.

This BS is the McConnell Veto stunt. Let’s kill the filibuster and get this off the negotiating table.