when did democrats start opposing the fillibuster?

[Jim in CT]

in the 2019-2020 congress, senate democrats used the fillibuster 300+ times.

Now, they act like supporting the fillibuster, is akin to supporting slavery.

How convenient for them, that filibustering is totally ok when democrats are in the minority, and fillibuster is awful when democrats are in the majority.

https://repustar.com/fact-briefs/do-...ng-filibusters

[scottw]

you would expect something different from them?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you would expect something different from them?

no, i’m just curious to see how they attempt to deny the glaring hypocrisy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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

[wdmso]

Research by Slate on filibusters between 1991 and 2008 found that Democrats successfully filibustered 63 times while Republicans successfully filibustered 89 times.


But again Jim leaves out that they are looking to temporally change the rule for the John Lewis voting act which passed last time to just be debated

By a Vote of 98-0, Senate Approves 25-Year Extension of Voting Rights Act
Under Bush. Now no Republicans in the Senate voted for it? To even be debated


If Republicans want to argue that many leading Democrats have changed their minds about the propriety of filibusters, they'll have plenty of accurate content to work with. But context matters: the routinization of once-rare filibusters has changed the nature of the debate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Research by Slate on filibusters between 1991 and 2008 found that Democrats successfully filibustered 63 times while Republicans successfully filibustered 89 times.


But again Jim leaves out that they are looking to temporally change the rule for the John Lewis voting act which passed last time to just be debated

By a Vote of 98-0, Senate Approves 25-Year Extension of Voting Rights Act
Under Bush. Now no Republicans in the Senate voted for it? To even be debated


If Republicans want to argue that many leading Democrats have changed their minds about the propriety of filibusters, they'll have plenty of accurate content to work with. But context matters: the routinization of once-rare filibusters has changed the nature of the debate.

What's the point of a fillibuster, if the majority party can remove it for certain pieces of legislation?

"the routinization of once-rare filibusters has changed the nature of the debate."

BOTH SIDES do it routinely. Only one side wants to do away with it because they can't get what they want by following the rules.

"they are looking to temporally change the rule"

As if that matters. They used the fillibuster when it suited them. Now it's an obstacle and they refuse to play by the same rules that they demanded the GOP play by last year.

Pete;s defense: "it's OK, they only want to occasionally do away with it, meaning every time the fillibuster prevents them from passing legislation they can't pass within the rules."

[PaulS]

Since the right to vote is prob. the most important thing we can do as a citizen, Biden prob. got fed up w/states trying to prevent citizens from voting by passing voting restrictions in an attempt to prevent people from voting (Intent).

It is crazy to pass a law that says you cannot give someone in line waiting to vote a bottle of water. How about opening (instead of closing) more voting places so people don't have to wait in line so long that they actually get hungry/thirsty.

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Since the right to vote is prob. the most important thing we can do as a citizen, Biden prob. got fed up w/states trying to prevent citizens from voting by passing voting restrictions in an attempt to prevent people from voting (Intent).

It is crazy to pass a law that says you cannot give someone in line waiting to vote a bottle of water. How about opening (instead of closing) more voting places so people don't have to wait in line so long that they actually get hungry/thirsty.

As I understand it, the law only prevents candidates and their campaigns, from handing out water. Polling places can have water and food, it just can't come from a campaign. I agree it's a silly rule, but also not a big deal, how many people are dying of dehydration in November while standing in line to vote?

I think more voting places is a great idea.

And I think the liberal opposition to showing ids, is horsesh-t.

If you found a bunch of professional problem solvers who had zero political affiliation, and asked them how to make sure voting is honest, the first thing they'd say is "in person voting when possible, with id verification".

It cannot be racist to require id, unless you make blacks follow a harder process to get the id, than whites.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As I understand it, the law only prevents candidates and their campaigns, from handing out water. Polling places can have water and food, it just can't come from a campaign. I agree it's a silly rule, but also not a big deal, how many people are dying of dehydration in November while standing in line to vote?

I think more voting places is a great idea.

And I think the liberal opposition to showing ids, is horsesh-t.

If you found a bunch of professional problem solvers who had zero political affiliation, and asked them how to make sure voting is honest, the first thing they'd say is "in person voting when possible, with id verification".

It cannot be racist to require id, unless you make blacks follow a harder process to get the id, than whites.

Ron DeathSantis is currently talking about issues with voting fraud in Florida.

Remember, the only four people charged with voter fraud in Floriduh 2020 were four Republicans from the Villages.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Ron DeathSantis is currently talking about issues with voting fraud in Florida.

Remember, the only four people charged with voter fraud in Floriduh 2020 were four Republicans from the Villages.

You should email the governor, tell him you call him that, see if it doesn't make him resign in shame.

Meanwhile, 900 people a day are moving there from out of state.

https://www.businessinsider.com/flor...elocate-2021-5

[Pete F.]

At this point, you have to be an utter dupe to think Republicans won’t get rid of the filibuster on their own.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You should email the governor, tell him you call him that, see if it doesn't make him resign in shame.

Meanwhile, 900 people a day are moving there from out of state.

https://www.businessinsider.com/flor...elocate-2021-5

They need them

A Florida state agency spokesman was killed in an apparent road rage incident near the state capital, authorities said.

The Leon County Sheriff's Office said in a news release that John Kuczwanski, who was the director of external affairs for Florida's State Board of Administration, was killed in a shooting outside a convenience store last Thursday.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

At this point, you have to be an utter dupe to think Republicans won’t get rid of the filibuster on their own.

begs the question, why didn’t they do it in 2020 when the democrats filibustered everything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

begs the question, why didn’t they do it in 2020 when the democrats filibustered everything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you'll have to ask the turtle

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They need them

A Florida state agency spokesman was killed in an apparent road rage incident near the state capital, authorities said.

The Leon County Sheriff's Office said in a news release that John Kuczwanski, who was the director of external affairs for Florida's State Board of Administration, was killed in a shooting outside a convenience store last Thursday.

great rebuttal, because we all know i said there’s zero violent crime in FL.

there are terrible places in every state.

you really are precious. what a comeback that was! Zing!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Actually I think they are moving to Floriduh from West Virginia, Louisiana, North Dakota and Mississippi.

But they couldn't possibly be leaving those cheap Republican states, could they?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Actually I think they are moving to Floriduh from West Virginia, Louisiana, North Dakota and Mississippi.

But they couldn't possibly be leaving those cheap Republican states, could they?

i’m sure you want to convince yourself of that.

but according to this data, NY sends the most people moving to FL, and CA is ranked 5th for losing people
to FL.

how about that?


https://stacker.com/florida/states-s...people-florida
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m sure you want to convince yourself of that.

but according to this data, NY sends the most people moving to FL, and CA is ranked 5th for losing people
to FL.

how about that?


https://stacker.com/florida/states-s...people-florida
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about that

Moved from California to Florida in 2019: 28,628
--- 4.8% of new residents that moved from another state
--- #7 most common destination from California
- Moved from Florida to California in 2019: 22,692
--- #4 most common destination from Florida

Moved from New York to Florida in 2019: 57,488
--- 9.6% of new residents that moved from another state
--- #2 most common destination from New York
- Moved from Florida to New York in 2019: 18,976
--- #8 most common destination from Florida

Moved from Georgia to Florida in 2019: 49,681
--- 8.3% of new residents that moved from another state
--- #1 most common destination from Georgia
- Moved from Florida to Georgia in 2019: 46,235
--- #1 most common destination from Florida

Lately it seems like Georgia is tilting left, are all the Dems leaving Floriduh?

[Jim in CT]

in a brilliant move, Senator Tom Cotton read a speech on the floor of the senate, it was a speech written by someone else, talking about how vital the filibuster is, how crucial it is to give the minority some ability to limit what the majority does, how important the filibuster is to ensure some stability.

It was a speech written and previously delivered, by Chuck Schumer.

It was a brilliant and glorious move by Cotton to show how unprincipled, hypocritical, and opportunistic the current democrats are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

in a brilliant move, Senator Tom Cotton read a speech on the floor of the senate, it was a speech written by someone else, talking about how vital the filibuster is, how crucial it is to give the minority some ability to limit what the majority does, how important the filibuster is to ensure some stability.

It was a speech written and previously delivered, by Chuck Schumer.

It was a brilliant and glorious move by Cotton to show how unprincipled, hypocritical, and opportunistic the current democrats are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The reason the Ds want to remove the filibuster is bc the Rs want to limit people's ability to vote (Intent). That shows how unprincipled and frankly sleazy the current Rs. are.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The reason the Ds want to remove the filibuster is bc the Rs want to limit people's ability to vote (Intent). That shows how unprincipled and frankly sleazy the current Rs. are.

yes, we want to ensure that the people who vote, are who they claim to be. What a “sleazy” thing to aspire to.

Biden gave his speech in GA, the liberal ground zero for alleged voter suppression. Except they allow more early voting days than. ideas home state of Deleware. and if showing an if to get an absentee ballot is so bad, why does MN do it?

Paul, are you ok with checking signatures to verify absentee ballots? How many people are actually properly trained to compare signatures?

I live in Ct, and every year they check my id to vote. I can’t vote unless i show it. Why is that requirement only racist when certain states do it?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yes, we want to ensure that the people who vote, are who they claim to be. What a “sleazy” thing to aspire to.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet they can't find any real fraud. The rare fraud they do find seems to be old white guys who are registered as Rs and vote twice.

You're big on "Intent" and we both know what the intent of these numerous laws are - to make it more difficult for people to vote. That is as sleazy as it gets.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And yet they can't find any real fraud. The rare fraud they do find seems to be old white guys who are registered as Rs and vote twice.

You're big on "Intent" and we both know what the intent of these numerous laws are - to make it more difficult for people to vote. That is as sleazy as it gets.

there’s some fraud. why not address it? isn’t less fraud always better than more fraud?

i’m big on intent. like people who oppose drug tests, it’s hard for
me to not be suspicious of those who oppose something as obvious as requiring IDs. both sides are trying to gain arvantage. i don’t buy that requiring IDs meaningfully suppresses the vote. there are too many every day things we need id for, to convince me that huge numbers of people
don’t have them.

you chose not to answer the questions i asked. how effective is it to look at signatures on absentee ballots? how many people are really trained to analyze signatures.

and if ID requirements are racist, why does my Ct suburb require them? i assume
that’s a state law, not a town thing? they will not let me vote without showing ID.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

You keep saying some fraud but it's so minuscule and has no impact and it seems most of it is by Republicans on a one off basis. Georgia has been closing drop boxes including closing them days before the election when most people use them. Blacks have a tradition of voting the Sunday before the election after church and going together. Anyone can't honestly believe this is about preventing fraud when there is almost none. The only reason these laws are changing is to prevent people from voting pure and simple. Preventing people from voting is sleazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The only reason these laws are changing is to prevent people from voting pure and simple.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we know that you will continue to try to convince yourself of this,,,

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You keep saying some fraud but it's so minuscule and has no impact and it seems most of it is by Republicans on a one off basis. Georgia has been closing drop boxes including closing them days before the election when most people use them. Blacks have a tradition of voting the Sunday before the election after church and going together. Anyone can't honestly believe this is about preventing fraud when there is almost none. The only reason these laws are changing is to prevent people from voting pure and simple. Preventing people from voting is sleazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

paul they dont check and verify every single vote so who knows.

third time, is CT racist for requiring id?

GA has very high black voting turnout.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul they dont check and verify every single vote so who knows.

third time, is CT racist for requiring id?

GA has very high black voting turnout.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, you don't seem to be getting Paul's point. Republican's want to require ID to vote because they want to suppress the vote. Democrats, such as in CT, require ID to vote in order to prevent fraud. Different intent.

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, you don't seem to be getting Paul's point. Republican's want to require ID to vote because they want to suppress the vote. Democrats, such as in CT, require ID to vote in order to prevent fraud. Different intent.

Hope that clears it up for you.

crystal clear.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

to prevent non-existent fraud. Different intent.

Hope that clears it up for you.

fixed it for you