Filibuster - An Interesting Observation

[jclay]

And to be sure, though the current narrative says otherwise, the Senate filibuster is not a Jim Crow era rule. It establishment predates that era by a good 60 years.

The article makes no claim that the mechanism is from the Jim Crow era.

The whole point of the filibuster is to obstruct the passage of legislation and slow the actions of the majority. That's by design.

The point of the article is that it’s use in the Jim Crow era was generally limited to maintenance of white political supremacy while allowing legislative actions to function in other areas, but that now it’s use has expanded in subject area scope to the point of crippling constructive government response to pressing issues of our time.

Many systems benefit from a little bit of friction but too much gets to be a problem. From where I sit it looks like necessary, intellectually honest deliberation and action relevant to changes in our society and the world are being sabotaged by those who want to inoculate against progress (or merely retain power/wealth) and go back to the days of Leave it to Beaver with it’s unquestioned white rule. I offer Georgia's most recent voter suppression actions as Exhibit 1 though we're swimming in additional evidence. Long term that will be about as constructive and effective as trying to stop ocean tides.

[bdaghisallo]

The article makes no claim that the mechanism is from the Jim Crow era.

You'll note that the poster I was replying to made the claim.

[jclay]

You'll note that the poster I was replying to made the claim.

I saw no reference to a particular poster.

I also take seriously your caution re "when the other guy has the weapon" so I don't really know that elimination of the filibuster is wise; it may well not be. I do know, as much as I can know anything, that the sort of voter suppression we're seeing from a fair number of elected Republicans is completely unacceptable and ultimately destructive. To be clear, it is those who advance or support such actions with whom I have an enormous problem. What is going on in GA, and similar elsewhere, is unconscionable and indefensible.

[bdaghisallo]

I saw no reference to a particular poster.

I also take seriously your caution re "when the other guy has the weapon" so I don't really know that elimination of the filibuster is wise; it may well not be. I do know, as much as I can know anything, that the sort of voter suppression we're seeing from a fair number of elected Republicans is completely unacceptable and ultimately destructive. To be clear, it is those who advance or support such actions with whom I have an enormous problem. What is going on in GA, and similar elsewhere, is unconscionable and indefensible.

I quoted the post I was replying to - post #10 .

[72gmc]

Take it back to what it was. Make Cancun Cruz or Chuck-out-the-bike-lane Schumer stand and read Green Eggs and Ham for 18 straight hours (no sitting!) to block a bill. The current incarnation is lazy.

[bdaghisallo]

Take it back to what it was. Make Cancun Cruz or Chuck-out-the-bike-lane Schumer stand and read Green Eggs and Ham for 18 straight hours (no sitting!) to block a bill. The current incarnation is lazy.

Agreed.

[Scott G.]

Take it back to what it was. Make Cancun Cruz or Chuck-out-the-bike-lane Schumer stand and read Green Eggs and Ham for 18 straight hours (no sitting!) to block a bill. The current incarnation is lazy.

Fillibusters should be Mr. Smith style...

James-Stewart-Mr-Smith-Goes-to-Washington.jpg

[Sino]

[QUOTE=Todd Amunrud;1043912]

Uh huh. So what about Clinton declaring "never accept Trump as President" and the completely unfounded and unproven "Russian" interference in an attempts to subvert the election? Those are just two blaring examples of literally thousands.

Wait, these are just what aboutism’s that have no bearing on the filibuster. Sorry to step in, but can you clarify the value of this within this discussion? I’ve appreciated your input so far, but please clarify.

Sure thing.

The post above mine that I was responding to stated that their basis/evidence for declaring if/when the GOP retakes the majorities, they will end the filibuster, was that the GOP had tried to "subvert the outcome of elections they don't like" to which I responded the above as evidence that Democratic party did/does exactly the same, and this is no reason to believe that the filibuster would be ended by either party, or a reason to end it, or anything else for that matter. Evidence/reasoning that said poster is simply buying into party line fear mongering as justification for ending the filibuster.

Basically just because either party disagrees with the outcomes of elections (pretty much universally by both), is no basis for the decision, nor any other major decision.

[bcm119]

Sure thing.

The post above mine that I was responding to stated that their basis/evidence for declaring if/when the GOP retakes the majorities, they will end the filibuster, was that the GOP had tried to "subvert the outcome of elections they don't like" to which I responded the above as evidence that Democratic party did/does exactly the same, and this is no reason to believe that the filibuster would be ended by either party, or a reason to end it, or anything else for that matter. Evidence/reasoning that said poster is simply buying into party line fear mongering as justification for ending the filibuster.

Basically just because either party disagrees with the outcomes of elections (pretty much universally by both), is no basis for the decision, nor any other major decision.

Are you really equating a quote that Clinton said at some event in 2016 (I don't even remember it but I'll take your word for it) about not accepting Trump's win (rhetorically of course, since he clearly won), with Trump's orchestrated attempt through misinformation and over 60 lawsuits at all levels of the courts in multiple states to overturn an election? These two things are not in the same universe.
And Russian interference was proven in 2016: social media companies identified thousands of Russian bots spreading pro-Trump disinformation to sway public opinion. That is interference. This is also not in the same universe as claiming that there was a massive coordinated effort by election officials and voting machine companies to change the results.

[jclay]

Are you really equating a quote that Clinton said at some event in 2016 (I don't even remember it but I'll take your word for it) about not accepting Trump's win (rhetorically of course, since he clearly won), with Trump's orchestrated attempt through misinformation and over 60 lawsuits at all levels of the courts in multiple states to overturn an election? These two things are not in the same universe.
And Russian interference was proven in 2016: social media companies identified thousands of Russian bots spreading pro-Trump disinformation to sway public opinion. That is interference. This is also not in the same universe as claiming that there was a massive coordinated effort by election officials and voting machine companies to change the results.

Thank you for saving me and probably some others the trouble of responding. I grow weary of repeatedly having to refute the BS and false equivalences, or less, still being batted around. Many hands and all that. I read the Mueller Report.

[thollandpe]

Just like Mel Gibson!

[smontanaro]

The Senate filibuster was used 328 times in 2020 - once by Republican senators and 327 times by the other guys.

Sure, you play by the rules you have before you. When The Republicans were in the minority they used it every chance they could to stymie Democratic efforts to pass legislation. The expectation that they will filibuster everything now is what makes this discussion timely.

Adam Jentleson was deputy chief of staff for Harry Reid. After he left the Senate, he researched and wrote a book, “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy." He was interviewed on the Ezra Klein podcast a couple months ago. Ezra Klein has also been hanging around Congress as a journalist for a long while and also has a book, “Why We’re Polarized." The interview is more like a back-and-forth conversation. I highly recommend it. They discuss reconciliation, and why it's a poor substitute for normal legislative processes. Here's an extended quote about how we even got the filibuster (emphasis mine):

And just to level set on this, the framers did not intend the minority to have the right to unlimited debate in the Senate. They were very clear about this. I’m not an originalist, but I think it’s important to establish this because this is where the conversation often goes. They implemented many rules and procedures that would allow a majority to end debate when it had become obstructionist and ceased to be about persuasion and just about blocking things. One of the major rules got taken off the rule books by mistake in 1806. No one noticed for decades, and then [John] Calhoun ["spiritual godfather of the Confederacy"] in the 1830s realized that taking away this ability to end debate created the potential for unlimited debate. And so he started to say that this was what the Senate is about. And it’s about the minority’s ability to always speak as long as they wanted. [James] Madison was alive, and at one point, he wrote to Calhoun and responded to his ideas. He wrote in response to Calhoun’s ideas that this is not what he intended at all. But then he died, and he was the last of the framers to go. And so then, Calhoun sort of had the floor to himself to reinvent the idea of the Senate.

I am happy to discuss this stuff, and I think it can be done without rancor. I do think it's important to understand the underpinnings of the system we have today so we can understand what the heck is going on in the Senate, "the world's greatest deliberative body" (my eye).

[Sino]

Are you really equating a quote that Clinton said at some event in 2016 (I don't even remember it but I'll take your word for it) about not accepting Trump's win (rhetorically of course, since he clearly won), with Trump's orchestrated attempt through misinformation and over 60 lawsuits at all levels of the courts in multiple states to overturn an election? These two things are not in the same universe.
And Russian interference was proven in 2016: social media companies identified thousands of Russian bots spreading pro-Trump disinformation to sway public opinion. That is interference. This is also not in the same universe as claiming that there was a massive coordinated effort by election officials and voting machine companies to change the results.

Your "facts" are opinions, nothing more. Your ratings of weight of different actions is completely arbitrary. Clinton can flat out urge her millions of supporters to "never" accept Trump as president, yet Trump saying far less in a tweet is inciting an insurrection? I'd suggest checking your biases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-intimidation/

Weird, looks like they filed lawsuits as well. The entire "Russian collusion" thing was a false narrative equally as egregious as anything Trump said.

There was no Russian collusion with Trump that was found after a multi-million dollar federal investigation. "The committee found the FBI gave “unjustified credence” to a “dossier” of purportedly damaging information about Trump’s dealings with Russia prepared for Clinton Campaign lawyers by former British spy Christopher Steele."

Common sense indicates that it was the Clinton's who were the most friendly with the Russians, time and time again. There is no sensical reason they would have wanted Trump over Clinton. None.

[cny rider]

There is no sensical reason they would have wanted Trump over Clinton. None.

The former KGB agent Putin and enemy of the United States saw great opportunity in having such a weak and vulnerable man as President of this country.
His expectations were exceeded, probably beyond anything he had hoped for.

[gregl]

The former KGB agent Putin and enemy of the United States saw great opportunity in having such a weak and vulnerable man as President of this country.
His expectations were exceeded, probably beyond anything he had hoped for.

Trump was far worse than just "weak and vulnerable." He was (and is) ridiculously easy to manipulate. Trump was the perfect agent-in-place for the United States' enemies. Whenever I see/hear Trump speak, I'm reminded of Johnny Iselin in the 1962 film, "The Manchurian Candidate". Except instead of being controlled by Angela Lansbury, he's controlled by Fox News.

Greg

[zachateseverything]

There is no sensical reason they would have wanted Trump over Clinton. None.

Let's put on our thinking caps here and pretend that you're the head of a major geopolitical rival to the united states. Would you want your rival to be helmed by a competent but maybe not overly popular career politician that's unlikely to make radical changes to foreign policy and is likely to opperate with a large degree of continuity from the previous administration? or by a malignant narcissist who is at a minimum easily influenced to make policy changes in your favor for minimal ROI (and generally a personal ROI), is likely to further partisan divide in the country (making it less likely that your rival can react to fluid changes), and is quite possibly has deep financial ties to your country?

It's 2021. Occam's razor still applies.

[Will Neide]

Let's put on our thinking caps here and pretend that you're the head of a major geopolitical rival to the united states. Would you want your rival to be helmed by a competent but maybe not overly popular career politician that's unlikely to make radical changes to foreign policy and is likely to opperate with a large degree of continuity from the previous administration? or by a malignant narcissist who is at a minimum easily influenced to make policy changes in your favor for minimal ROI (and generally a personal ROI), is likely to further partisan divide in the country (making it less likely that your rival can react to fluid changes), and is quite possibly has deep financial ties to your country?

It's 2021. Occam's razor still applies.

Add to this the fact that Trump had already previously written to and spoken with Putin in favorable (BFF?) terms previous to his presidency. Putin had no reason to favor Clinton at all.

[bdaghisallo]

If Trump was doing the bidding of Putin and (covertly) boosting Russia's interests, he would have surely done the following:

Limited fracking as much as he possibly could
Blocked oil and gas pipelines and encouraged European allies to tie themselves to Russian gas supplies
Opened negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
Cut U.S. military spending
Tried to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran


Which of those did he pursue?

[gregl]

If Trump was doing the bidding of Putin and (covertly) boosting Russia's interests, he would have surely done the following:

Limited fracking as much as he possibly could
Blocked oil and gas pipelines and encouraged European allies to tie themselves to Russian gas supplies
Opened negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
Cut U.S. military spending
Tried to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran


Which of those did he pursue?

All of these actions require an intelligent, nuanced world view. Trump possess none of those traits and no subtlety. To Putin, Trump was simply a big hammer. Trump didn't have to do any of the specific actions you listed. He just had to drive a huge wedge into the splits already open in American culture. Russia/the USSR/Russia again has always played a long game. By dividing the American electorate, slowing down any positive work by the US government, and isolating the US from traditional and potential allies, Trump gave Putin time to work on other issues (e.g., consolidating power, military build-ups, and building relationships with other nations). Trump also normalized a global pattern of anti-democratic leadership. If it was OK for Trump to attack democratic norms, it validated/allowed other world leaders to do the same. In a battle of wits, Trump was hopelessly under-armed against Putin.

Greg

[zachateseverything]

If Trump was doing the bidding of Putin and (covertly) boosting Russia's interests, he would have surely done the following:

Limited fracking as much as he possibly could
Blocked oil and gas pipelines and encouraged European allies to tie themselves to Russian gas supplies
Opened negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
Cut U.S. military spending
Tried to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran


Which of those did he pursue?

None of that is the way Trump operates. Trump was actively driving a wedge with our NATO allies. Trump also pulled the plug on the INF treaty and pursued reduced sanctions.