What good is a filibuster that you never use because you're afraid

[pnwmom]

that if you use it, they'll end it?

Isn't a filibuster power that you're afraid to ever invoke pretty much worthless already?

What am I missing here?

[Trust Buster]

1. If they wait to use the filibuster for the next Supreme Court vacancy, then the Republicans will

nuke it then anyway. Democrats are too timid against the animals. That is why they lose.

[pnwmom]

3. We would have won the election if Comey and the Russians hadn't interfered. n/t

[Dave Starsky]

2. It's never made any sense to me.

On the flip side, why did the mere whisper of a GOP filibuster always make the Dems quiver in fear? I never understood why they didn't MAKE the sons of bitches stand there reading from the phone book for four days.

[mdbl]

4. because they changed how it works

to filibuster, they just send a note to the majority leader and stay home. it doesn't take any work.

[Recursion]

6. That's always been how it works. Strom Thurmond didn't have to get up and read from a phone book

he did that because it brought in donations. (And, really technically, that was after the filibuster had been broken already; that was just Thurmond taking advantage of the fact that a Senator with the floor who continues speaking can't be gaveled down.)

[mdbl]

8. I was under the impression that a fillibuster originally

required the senator to physically hold the floor.

[Recursion]

9. Maybe 150 years ago

The current cloture rules date back to the 1910s. There was a reform in the 1960s that let the President Pro Tem move on to other business when cloture failed without fully tabling the original measure.

[mdbl]

10. So about 60 years then

When you're pushing 70, it doesn't sound as long.

[Recursion]

5. Has there been business that's subject to filibuster yet?

I mean, I suppose we could have filibustered the condemnation of UNSCR 2334, but other than that it's been reconciliation bills and appointments.

[Volaris]

7. If they want to cut their own throats by invoking the nuclear option

LET them be so dumb. Yeah, we might lose that particular battle, but they won't be in power forever (especially with his Orange Majesty already impeachable) and NOT needing 60 votes to call for a damn bathroom break in the Senate is a BIG part of us winning the War.

I personally don't think they'll do it so yes let's call their bluff. The whole lot of them are rat cowards let's use that to our best advantage.

[Amimnoch]

11. That's my thought as well.

We don't filibuster - Confirmation happens. Filibuster remains intact. Republicans get their way. We face their filibusters when the tides turn again. We honor the filibusters and obstructionism (we just had perfect examples and history during President Obamas first 2 years in office). I.e. we lose completely with nothing at all to show for it.

We filibuster - They go nuclear. Confirmation still happens. Republicans still get their way. However, Republicans have expended much of their political capital, set a precedent that WILL eventually come back to bite them in the rear. We still lose this battle, but have set ourselves up for a better position in the future. Just one example.. Obamacare would have had the government option without it, and would have been harder to dismantle now.

We filibuster - They don't go nuclear. Confirmation is stopped. We get our way (well, somewhat), we win the battle. What happens next is a wild card. Trump will make more appointments, and going off of his childish and vindictive nature, will probably be a worse choice. On a personal level, I'd Loooooove to see this happen, but I do worry that there may be political damage and the con's painting us as "obstructionist" in a way that damages our chances of retaking the house in 2018.

[oberliner]

13. There is no scenario where Gorsuch isn't confirmed

Options one and two are the only ones on the table.

[former9thward]

14. Obamacare was not subect to the filibuster.

So the government option did not have anything to do with it. The government option was dumped to get Democratic votes not Republican.

[Amimnoch]

15. I've heard others state that as well.

If that was the case, then why was the fight for 60 votes instead of 51?

https://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/s396-111.2009

As I recall, getting Insurance bought and paid for Joe Lieberman onboard was critical to getting it passed, and sacrificing the government option was the charge for his support.

If it wasn't subject to filibuster, why did anyone care if he supported or not? I'd have thought the 59 remaining votes would have been good enough.

[pnwmom]

18. You are right. Most of Obamacare needed 60 votes. Budget reconciliation can't be used

to pass things that have nothing to do with the budget.

And you are right about Lieberman's vote being critical.

[pnwmom]

17. Wrong. Most of it was. They could include certain parts of it in the budget reconciliation bill,

but most of it was subject to the filibuster. That's why we have no public option. Due to Joe Lieberman, who was NOT a Democrat anymore but generally voted with them, and his refusal to support a public option, the only bill that could get 60 votes in the Senate was Obamacare. The original intent was to take the Senate Bill to committee along with the more liberal bill that could get passed in the House, and end up with a version closer to the House bill.

Then Ted Kennedy died -- and with his death we lost the ability to pass any further bills in the Senate with 60 votes. So we had to send the Senate bill that was passed with his vote exactly was it was -- including no public option -- to the House to get approved. And it was.

[libtodeath]

16. They will just change it back as lame ducks.

They are pure evil.

[Kentonio]

21. And then we'll change it back yet again, and have perfectly good precedent for doing so.

[IronLionZion]

12. Many Dem leaders regret using the nuclear option to block filibuster

of presidential nominations. They had to do it because of Tea party obstruction of Obama's nominees. And back then I'm sure it looked like we would retain control of the Senate.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312540-schumer-regrets-dems-triggering-nuclear-option
In 2013, Democrats in the Senate altered the filibuster rules, lowering the number of senators needed to confirm presidential nominees from 60 to a simple majority of 51.

It sucks to have them in control of all 3 branches of government and both houses of congress.

[rock]

19. In fact it's a fake filibuster

If they end it, you can then shift to a real filibuster! Dimwits.

[randome]

20. It's like everything else in politics: you don't take a stand unless you think you can win.

A filiburster that will in the end accomplish nothing is not worth the effort. Whose minds will be changed? How will it effect the electorate numbers? Those are the calculations that go into whether or not to filibuster. I think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]