Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
232 years ago, in 1790, a simple majority could end any debate.
The current form of filibuster that Manchin is protecting—in which votes can't happen until 60 Senators agree—didn't exist until 1975. Hundreds of exceptions have been made to it, including one last month.
The filibuster arose by accident: in 1805, the Senate streamlined its rules at the urging of Aaron Burr. Nobody thought they were creating a vehicle for obstruction, and no one used it that way until 1837, after the Framers were dead.
The first filibuster, in 1837, failed. It included a Senator being dragged into the Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms then dragged back out again when he got saucy with the presiding officer. “Am I not permitted to speak in my own defense?” he cried, and the answer was no.
Up until the 20th Century, most filibusters failed. They required holding the Senate floor and compliance with every rule. An 1893 filibuster on a silver bill went on for 46 days and failed. A 1908 filibuster failed by an accidental yielding to a Senator who had stepped out.
Even after the initial cloture rule in 1917, filibusters were still rare, and still typically failed except in the lone area of civil rights laws.
When Joe Manchin was born in 1947, the Senate still operated almost entirely by majority-rule.
The few successful filibusters had a theme: anti-lynching legislation in 1922, 1935, and 1938. Anti-poll-tax legislation in 1942, 1944, 1946, 1948, and 1962. Civil rights legislation in 1946, 1950, 1957, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1972, and 1975. Some tradition, huh?
The very first time in American history that Senators could block legislation *without* indefinitely holding the Senate floor (while also complying with all Senate rules) was 1972.
It’s all downhill from there
There's no "tradition" to the current filibuster, and it has been constantly modified. The only real Senate tradition, as Byrd himself recognized, was that a majority could invoke cloture whenever it wanted by changing the rules. Which it has. Repeatedly. Like last month.
There's no principled or historical justification for the current filibuster in which GOP priorities—judges, tax cuts, drilling on fed land, regulatory rollbacks—go to a majority vote but voting rights, minimum wage, and immigration can't get a vote until 60 Senators agree.
Keep in mind that the corrupt Kentucky Senator who broke the Senate said that the Senate is not broken.
The turtle will run the table and dispense with the pretenses of previous years, as he did with the ACB nomination. "We would NEVER dump the filibuster because we didn't four years ago" is "We'll NEVER do a nomination that close to an election. Until we do."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
"The current form of filibuster that Manchin is protecting"
And which senate democrats used to their advantage as recently as last year, right? It wasn't that long ago, that every democrat in the senate loved the fillibuster.
And Paul, was it only the GOP who flip-floppped at whether or not presidents should make SCOTUS appointments near the end of a term?
Remember, what McConnell did, was to invoke the Biden Rule. When Bush was president, Biden said no president should make a nomination near the end of his term, and that if he did, the senate should block it. Biden said that, it was known as the Biden Rule. But when Republicans invoked the Biden rule (when Biden was VP), then all of a sudden, it was OK for presidents to make late term appointments. Then when Trump did it, democrats flipped again, saying it was bad.
And OBVIOUSLY, the republicans were as hypocritical on the topic as democrats. But you're only pointing out GOP hypocrisy, as if that's all there is.
None of them have any actual principles, except to win.