The filibuster is the gift the Senators have given themselves.....
Bernie just described it as "an important part of what the Senate is" in an interview with Kaitlan Collins on CNN. He didn't think it's going away. It makes those 100 people very powerful.
"Trump is a little bit crazy and he lies all the time, but he's not stupid......". He thinks Trump is catching on that he is playing a losing game. Senator Sanders is wrong. Trump is COMPLETELY crazy, and he absolutely is stupid. All he has ever thought about was grifting, being rich, and screwing everyone else literally and figuratively.
TRump may not win his filibuster argument with the Senate, but they will pay. Hitler at the end of World War II hated Germans, even though approximately 7 million of them died for him.
TRump is a psychopath. Americans' health care, housing, food, rights, and DEATH mean NOTHING to him. We need to understand that. See you in the streets.
There is no refuting your factual statement "TRump is a psychopath." However, and most disturbingly, he was not put in office (twice) by a military coup. He was put in office by the other 80 million "psychopaths" that voted for him and THAT is the sobering reality. In other words, he is a mirror, a reflection, of a very, very sick society.
Rohn, when I read your unvarnished opinions, all I want to do is shake your hand.
I don't think 22.2% of people in America have NO empathy, but 1 in 100 don't and, they are like TRump. It's probably a spectrum and the rest are at the low end.
Damn straight it is one kind of reflection. I've written these are the same people that would have been in the front row at the Colosseum. Ditto for our racially motivated atrocities in the past and the ones happening today.
They are in every country on the planet, but perhaps in various percentages. I truly believe it's genetic but fed by each other and certain conditions.
What about our hero Cory Booker, who spoke for 25 hours, 5 minutes, against Trump policies in April?
The term filibuster comes from a Dutch word for “freebooter” and the Spanish “filibusteros”—to describe the pirates then raiding Caribbean islands—the term began appearing in American legislative debates in the 1850s. “I saw my friend standing on the other side of the House filibustering,” commented Mississippi’s Albert Brown on January 3, 1853. A month later, North Carolina senator George Badger complained of “filibustering speeches," and the term became a permanent part of our political lexicon.
The earliest filibusters also led to the first demands for what we now call “cloture,” a method for ending debate and bringing a question to a vote. In 1841 the Democratic minority attempted to run out the clock on a bill to establish a national bank. Frustrated, Whig senator Henry Clay threatened to change Senate rules to limit debate. Clay’s proposal prompted others to warn of even longer filibusters to prevent any change to the rules. “I tell the Senator,” proclaimed a defiant William King of Alabama, “he may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the [entire] winter.” While some senators found filibusters to be objectionable, others exalted the right of unlimited debate as a key tradition of the Senate, vital to tempering the power of political majorities.
Without the fillibuster, we'd never get to see Ted (Don't call me Rafael) Cruz educate Repblicans of the glory of Green Eggs and Ham!
Instead of wasting a call supporting TRUMP, many Congressional Republicans privately admit Trump is nuts.
I keep posting. According to Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) Trumpepstein may cause an "Epstein bomb" causing over 100 Republican members to "jailbreak" from Trump.
Absolutely. You can't have a country proclaiming to be a bastion of freedom, and found it on the genocidal murder of the indigenous while codifying chattel slavery of human beings in its founding documents.
Established class oppression is, unfortunately, in the double-helix of the USA's DNA. The only way for it to survive and become what it claims, is to evolve from the same deep foundational level.
I appreciate the opportunity to present a counter-argument.
If the Democrats regain control of the senate, then there would be a fair argument for doing away with the filibuster.
But in the current context, eliminating the filibuster might arguably lead to the complete loss of our democracy!
Trump is already calling for the senate to eliminate the filibuster in order to pass 'election reform'. If they actually follow through and do that, and pass things like eliminating mail-in voting; requiring documented proof of citizenship; etc.; Democrats will NEVER regain control, and future elections will be as meaningless as they are in Russia.
I called your show on Monday to make the point that the public is already sufficiently motivated to oust the Republicans, and would do so in a fair election. You mentioned (what some polls were showing) a 'tight race' in New Jersey indicating people needed more motivation. I said "let's wait and see what happens on Tuesday".
Well now the evidence is in. Given the Dems massive wins in New Jersey (and frankly, across many swing and even conservative states), I would argue that people are very sufficiently motivated. We do not need more horrible legislation to pass the senate to motivate people, so why encourage the elimination of the filibuster right now??? Essentially, you would be turning over the future of our nation to the likes of Stephen Miller and Russel Vought.
Given who currently controls the federal government, the best thing we can do is use the filibuster to stop further damage, and work like heck to re-take the House (and possibly even the Senate???) in 2026.
You are correct Thom. Short term pain, long term gain, and it is obvious that Senators hide behind the filibuster, like quite a few Democratic Senators hid behind the skirts of Manchin and Sinema.,''And when the Democrats held the majority and were being stymied by the Republicans, neither Reid or Schumer would evoke the nuclear option, for the same reason
Everyone with a frontal lobe wants to stop Trump, but the facts on the ground are that although a lower court (not all lower courts) might rule against Trump, Appellate courts, not all appellate courts, will reverse lower court ruling, And when he takes the case to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will rule in his favor, and has either through the shadow docket or in court. Waiting now to see if SCOTUS stands behind Trump or Congress in the tariff case.
The point is that you are promoting a mirage, a fantasy, that the law will save us. It's worse, Trump has shown that even if a court rules against him,he will ignore the ruling.
The law is not the Bulwark Daniel. The people are the bulwark, and we can;t depend on lawyers and courts to save us.
The Nov 4 elections are proof the pudding. A clean sweep, I have my fingers crossed that all of the voter suppression laws, and maneuvers, will be offset by turnout.
But one thing isn't going to happen is for Republicans to jump the fence, and piss off Trump. Even MGT said that she still loves Trump.
What I see is posturing. MGT, Massie, Boebert are posturing for effect, for their constituents, knowing that they don't have a majority to force a discharge Not one other congressman will cross over... not one Daniel, not one.
And Johnson keeping Congress out of session is the same ploy,, as Senate Leadership not getting rid of the filibuster.
You act like a drowning man grasping at straws, me I want to see a national uprising, a national intifada, be it in the ballot box or resistance and a strike.
Thom is thinking like a political operative here, I believe. The logic is impeccable. But I have a visceral reaction to giving anything to these fascists and cowardly bums for the next three years or for a day. I would prefer to wait until Democrats have the House and Senate majorities to end the Filibuster or the Sillibuster which has replaced it. We should not underestimate the damage that would be done if it were ended now and before Democrats are in charge. No legislation passing is better than bad legislation passing and becoming the new "normal".
Will ending the filibuster end American fascism? I doubt it. Real change in politics usually requires real sacrifice. Based upon US history, we are not there yet.
In 1942, my parents, in their early 20s, right out of college, had their lives turned inside out by WWII. The entire country sacrificed as we prepared to enter the European's war. Times were hard, food was scarce and pricy, and salaries were in the toilet - especially if you were drafted. In the end, we defeated the fascism that was destroying the world economy in a bloodbath.
Today, all we hear is whiny moaning about the government shutdown that is depriving people of affordable food and medical care in the name of, once again, rooting out fascism - only this time - at home. Fascism is putting pressure on all Americans, even the top 5%, as their obscene market profits will eventually disappear once the NYSE bubble finally bursts, taking the Trump regime with it (hopefully).
The political sky is getting bluer - let's celebrate that and follow the example of our parents and grandparents, and gracefully bite the proverbial bullet and stop trying to pressure Democrats into caving to fascism.
IF this excrement were not so terribly tragic, it would be fantastically funny. Here is a "nation" that relies on 18th century documents and political practices, a 19th century economic model, a 20th century mentality (both geopolitically and domestically) in a 21st century world and its corresponding global demographics and realities. WTF could possibly be wrong?
I don't love the filibuster* but I fear its elimination. Without it, the Senate is just like the House - only worse. Because they are elected statewide, they will be less responsive to smaller constituencies and more responsive to the big donors who make a statewide run feasible. Also, because their term is 3 times the length of a House term, they can rely on voters' forgetting their ill deeds.
*I particularly despise the filibusters of the early 1800s, the gringo slave-owners who defied Spanish/Mexican law by bringing their enslaved persons across the border and settling in Texas. The subsequent history is one of the uglier episodes in our nation's narrative.
What worries me is what the GOP would do if all they needed was 51 votes to pass legislation. Might they find ways to weaken already weakened voting rights? Perhaps lay on tariffs if the Supreme Court decides that the president doesn't have the authority to levy them? In theory, I agree with majority rule to pass bills. But do you trust this group of republicans to do what is good for the American people or for themselves and Trump?
Brilliant analysis. The filibuster has become the Senate’s emotional support blanket for cowardice. Let them debate till their jaws lock, then make them vote. Accountability is not tyranny. It is democracy doing its job.
That’s exactly the point of ending the filibuster. Make them vote so every senator’s priorities are on record. If someone chooses tax breaks over food or health care, the people deserve to see it in daylight.
Hartman writes “If Trump succeeds in bending the will of enough of his GOP senators to end the filibuster, while it’ll cause short-term pain for Americans, it may well be the best thing for both Democrats and our nation in the long term.”
He’s not saying reopen the government without concern for SNAP or healthcare. He’s saying if Trump throws a fit and accidentally kills the filibuster, that might be the one useful thing he’s ever done. Because once Democrats are back in power, they could finally pass bills like SNAP expansions, voting rights, and healthcare without being blocked by 41 senators hiding behind procedure.
We have no (0.00) actual power unless we coerce or convince a few Republicans. As of today, only a few Republicans will listen, might be convinced. No cloiture, won't even get a discussion.
The filibuster is but one way legislators prevent democracy from happening, which can only help the owner class. We also have to suffer gerrymandering, shutdowns, long recesses, the excessive discretions allowed to the Speaker, and the dreaded blue slip.
Do not underestimate how much terrible legislation the Republicans will pass if the filibuster is eliminated.... including voter suppression legislation that may well make it impossible for Democrats to ever re-take control of the senate.
This is absolutely NOT the time to eliminate the filibuster!
No other of the common law countries have the filibuster. Canada, for example, does not. And these countries have functioned efficiently (as far as any government can) and never faced the problem of shutdowns.
As a wild-eyed progressive, I totally agree with ... gag ... the wannabee tyrant: the filibuster must go. It's a primary reason we are where we are. The People should get what they vote for. For the last 40 years or so, all they've gotten is gridlock. They vote Republican for a neoliberal nirvana - they don't get it because of the filibuster. They vote Democratic for a socialist utopia - they don't get it because of the filibuster. What they learn is "voting doesn't matter". The people should get the ruin or prosperity they vote for so we learn again that we need government and it should be "for We the People".
I agree with the proposal to reduce the power of the filibuster, though I feel that in certain situations it is useful.
My suggestion is that when we have a 50:50 3-banch government, there should be a delay in the passage of a contentious bill. So I would like to say that a super majority be required to pass a bill "The first time", but if the same bill is resubmitted after a few? Elections, then the re-elected Senate can pass it without the supermajority, e.g., 51:49 (excluding the VP). That way, the 'voters' can see the bill and decide if they want a 'slim majority' to still be in power to pass the delayed bills.
Obviously, this rule needs some tuning, but I think the Filibuster is too strong. In contrast, the immediate simple majority gives voters no chance to influence the passage of dangerous bills.
The filibuster is the gift the Senators have given themselves.....
Bernie just described it as "an important part of what the Senate is" in an interview with Kaitlan Collins on CNN. He didn't think it's going away. It makes those 100 people very powerful.
"Trump is a little bit crazy and he lies all the time, but he's not stupid......". He thinks Trump is catching on that he is playing a losing game. Senator Sanders is wrong. Trump is COMPLETELY crazy, and he absolutely is stupid. All he has ever thought about was grifting, being rich, and screwing everyone else literally and figuratively.
TRump may not win his filibuster argument with the Senate, but they will pay. Hitler at the end of World War II hated Germans, even though approximately 7 million of them died for him.
TRump is a psychopath. Americans' health care, housing, food, rights, and DEATH mean NOTHING to him. We need to understand that. See you in the streets.
There is no refuting your factual statement "TRump is a psychopath." However, and most disturbingly, he was not put in office (twice) by a military coup. He was put in office by the other 80 million "psychopaths" that voted for him and THAT is the sobering reality. In other words, he is a mirror, a reflection, of a very, very sick society.
Don't shoot the messenger.
(77,300,000\div 347,900,000)\times 100\%\approx 22.2%)
Rohn, when I read your unvarnished opinions, all I want to do is shake your hand.
I don't think 22.2% of people in America have NO empathy, but 1 in 100 don't and, they are like TRump. It's probably a spectrum and the rest are at the low end.
Damn straight it is one kind of reflection. I've written these are the same people that would have been in the front row at the Colosseum. Ditto for our racially motivated atrocities in the past and the ones happening today.
They are in every country on the planet, but perhaps in various percentages. I truly believe it's genetic but fed by each other and certain conditions.
"I truly believe it's genetic..."
You may now drop the mic.
Whatever Trump wants has to be bad, Thom.
Procedurally, no Consitutionlal authority for the filibuster.
But what about Jimmy Stewart? Senator Jefferson Smith's filibuster lasts for 25 hours before he faints. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPv0S1-ETdI
What about our hero Cory Booker, who spoke for 25 hours, 5 minutes, against Trump policies in April?
The term filibuster comes from a Dutch word for “freebooter” and the Spanish “filibusteros”—to describe the pirates then raiding Caribbean islands—the term began appearing in American legislative debates in the 1850s. “I saw my friend standing on the other side of the House filibustering,” commented Mississippi’s Albert Brown on January 3, 1853. A month later, North Carolina senator George Badger complained of “filibustering speeches," and the term became a permanent part of our political lexicon.
The earliest filibusters also led to the first demands for what we now call “cloture,” a method for ending debate and bringing a question to a vote. In 1841 the Democratic minority attempted to run out the clock on a bill to establish a national bank. Frustrated, Whig senator Henry Clay threatened to change Senate rules to limit debate. Clay’s proposal prompted others to warn of even longer filibusters to prevent any change to the rules. “I tell the Senator,” proclaimed a defiant William King of Alabama, “he may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the [entire] winter.” While some senators found filibusters to be objectionable, others exalted the right of unlimited debate as a key tradition of the Senate, vital to tempering the power of political majorities.
Without the fillibuster, we'd never get to see Ted (Don't call me Rafael) Cruz educate Repblicans of the glory of Green Eggs and Ham!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HJuaQL3KRI
Instead of wasting a call supporting TRUMP, many Congressional Republicans privately admit Trump is nuts.
I keep posting. According to Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-CA) Trumpepstein may cause an "Epstein bomb" causing over 100 Republican members to "jailbreak" from Trump.
Massive Congressional visits November 18.
https://www.instagram.com/flare.usa/p/DP_mdOyjdiG/
Visit CongressionalRepublicans.
https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/event/851451/
I think that if we play our cards right, many can be convinced by the election outcome to come forward.
The Electoral College
The Filibuster
The Civil War
150 years of Jim Crow
Voter suppression
Election rigging
Gerrymandering
Race Hate
John Roberts & Co.
Donald Trump
John C. Calhoun [Tied w/ DJT]
Seems like every gd thing wrong with this country is connected to slavery.
It's not unlike “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.” (Google it.)
O-U-T-S-T-A-N-D-I-N-G.
In fact, outgodamnedstanding and if the truth shall truly set one free, you are one of the freest among the Amerikan slaves; hue notwithstanding.
Absolutely. You can't have a country proclaiming to be a bastion of freedom, and found it on the genocidal murder of the indigenous while codifying chattel slavery of human beings in its founding documents.
Established class oppression is, unfortunately, in the double-helix of the USA's DNA. The only way for it to survive and become what it claims, is to evolve from the same deep foundational level.
I appreciate the opportunity to present a counter-argument.
If the Democrats regain control of the senate, then there would be a fair argument for doing away with the filibuster.
But in the current context, eliminating the filibuster might arguably lead to the complete loss of our democracy!
Trump is already calling for the senate to eliminate the filibuster in order to pass 'election reform'. If they actually follow through and do that, and pass things like eliminating mail-in voting; requiring documented proof of citizenship; etc.; Democrats will NEVER regain control, and future elections will be as meaningless as they are in Russia.
I called your show on Monday to make the point that the public is already sufficiently motivated to oust the Republicans, and would do so in a fair election. You mentioned (what some polls were showing) a 'tight race' in New Jersey indicating people needed more motivation. I said "let's wait and see what happens on Tuesday".
Well now the evidence is in. Given the Dems massive wins in New Jersey (and frankly, across many swing and even conservative states), I would argue that people are very sufficiently motivated. We do not need more horrible legislation to pass the senate to motivate people, so why encourage the elimination of the filibuster right now??? Essentially, you would be turning over the future of our nation to the likes of Stephen Miller and Russel Vought.
Given who currently controls the federal government, the best thing we can do is use the filibuster to stop further damage, and work like heck to re-take the House (and possibly even the Senate???) in 2026.
You are correct Thom. Short term pain, long term gain, and it is obvious that Senators hide behind the filibuster, like quite a few Democratic Senators hid behind the skirts of Manchin and Sinema.,''And when the Democrats held the majority and were being stymied by the Republicans, neither Reid or Schumer would evoke the nuclear option, for the same reason
That was then, this is now.
My point. Stop living in the past Daniel. The legal system you worked in, is not the same today.
Lawyers know more about putting a round peg into a square hole than you give credit. History...and a frontal lobe.
I don't understand why a Democrat (or any American) wouldn't want to try to stop Trump using any possible method.
Everyone with a frontal lobe wants to stop Trump, but the facts on the ground are that although a lower court (not all lower courts) might rule against Trump, Appellate courts, not all appellate courts, will reverse lower court ruling, And when he takes the case to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will rule in his favor, and has either through the shadow docket or in court. Waiting now to see if SCOTUS stands behind Trump or Congress in the tariff case.
The point is that you are promoting a mirage, a fantasy, that the law will save us. It's worse, Trump has shown that even if a court rules against him,he will ignore the ruling.
The law is not the Bulwark Daniel. The people are the bulwark, and we can;t depend on lawyers and courts to save us.
The Nov 4 elections are proof the pudding. A clean sweep, I have my fingers crossed that all of the voter suppression laws, and maneuvers, will be offset by turnout.
But one thing isn't going to happen is for Republicans to jump the fence, and piss off Trump. Even MGT said that she still loves Trump.
What I see is posturing. MGT, Massie, Boebert are posturing for effect, for their constituents, knowing that they don't have a majority to force a discharge Not one other congressman will cross over... not one Daniel, not one.
And Johnson keeping Congress out of session is the same ploy,, as Senate Leadership not getting rid of the filibuster.
You act like a drowning man grasping at straws, me I want to see a national uprising, a national intifada, be it in the ballot box or resistance and a strike.
Thom is thinking like a political operative here, I believe. The logic is impeccable. But I have a visceral reaction to giving anything to these fascists and cowardly bums for the next three years or for a day. I would prefer to wait until Democrats have the House and Senate majorities to end the Filibuster or the Sillibuster which has replaced it. We should not underestimate the damage that would be done if it were ended now and before Democrats are in charge. No legislation passing is better than bad legislation passing and becoming the new "normal".
Will ending the filibuster end American fascism? I doubt it. Real change in politics usually requires real sacrifice. Based upon US history, we are not there yet.
In 1942, my parents, in their early 20s, right out of college, had their lives turned inside out by WWII. The entire country sacrificed as we prepared to enter the European's war. Times were hard, food was scarce and pricy, and salaries were in the toilet - especially if you were drafted. In the end, we defeated the fascism that was destroying the world economy in a bloodbath.
Today, all we hear is whiny moaning about the government shutdown that is depriving people of affordable food and medical care in the name of, once again, rooting out fascism - only this time - at home. Fascism is putting pressure on all Americans, even the top 5%, as their obscene market profits will eventually disappear once the NYSE bubble finally bursts, taking the Trump regime with it (hopefully).
The political sky is getting bluer - let's celebrate that and follow the example of our parents and grandparents, and gracefully bite the proverbial bullet and stop trying to pressure Democrats into caving to fascism.
BUT - we are getting close.....I suggest we wait till after Thanksgiving - A lot of people unable to travel, especially without food!!
It will notbe only the Hispanics who are switching their votes - it will be lots of rural poor seeing not just "writing on the wall"
IF this excrement were not so terribly tragic, it would be fantastically funny. Here is a "nation" that relies on 18th century documents and political practices, a 19th century economic model, a 20th century mentality (both geopolitically and domestically) in a 21st century world and its corresponding global demographics and realities. WTF could possibly be wrong?
Or GO wrong?
I don't love the filibuster* but I fear its elimination. Without it, the Senate is just like the House - only worse. Because they are elected statewide, they will be less responsive to smaller constituencies and more responsive to the big donors who make a statewide run feasible. Also, because their term is 3 times the length of a House term, they can rely on voters' forgetting their ill deeds.
*I particularly despise the filibusters of the early 1800s, the gringo slave-owners who defied Spanish/Mexican law by bringing their enslaved persons across the border and settling in Texas. The subsequent history is one of the uglier episodes in our nation's narrative.
What worries me is what the GOP would do if all they needed was 51 votes to pass legislation. Might they find ways to weaken already weakened voting rights? Perhaps lay on tariffs if the Supreme Court decides that the president doesn't have the authority to levy them? In theory, I agree with majority rule to pass bills. But do you trust this group of republicans to do what is good for the American people or for themselves and Trump?
Brilliant analysis. The filibuster has become the Senate’s emotional support blanket for cowardice. Let them debate till their jaws lock, then make them vote. Accountability is not tyranny. It is democracy doing its job.
So you vote to repoen the government without concern about health care, SNAP, etc?
That’s exactly the point of ending the filibuster. Make them vote so every senator’s priorities are on record. If someone chooses tax breaks over food or health care, the people deserve to see it in daylight.
We already know. They vote every day!
So far 5 Dems croosed over. Republicans need 5 more.
Hartman writes “If Trump succeeds in bending the will of enough of his GOP senators to end the filibuster, while it’ll cause short-term pain for Americans, it may well be the best thing for both Democrats and our nation in the long term.”
He’s not saying reopen the government without concern for SNAP or healthcare. He’s saying if Trump throws a fit and accidentally kills the filibuster, that might be the one useful thing he’s ever done. Because once Democrats are back in power, they could finally pass bills like SNAP expansions, voting rights, and healthcare without being blocked by 41 senators hiding behind procedure.
That means we give up.
We have no (0.00) actual power unless we coerce or convince a few Republicans. As of today, only a few Republicans will listen, might be convinced. No cloiture, won't even get a discussion.
The filibuster is but one way legislators prevent democracy from happening, which can only help the owner class. We also have to suffer gerrymandering, shutdowns, long recesses, the excessive discretions allowed to the Speaker, and the dreaded blue slip.
Do not underestimate how much terrible legislation the Republicans will pass if the filibuster is eliminated.... including voter suppression legislation that may well make it impossible for Democrats to ever re-take control of the senate.
This is absolutely NOT the time to eliminate the filibuster!
No other of the common law countries have the filibuster. Canada, for example, does not. And these countries have functioned efficiently (as far as any government can) and never faced the problem of shutdowns.
As a wild-eyed progressive, I totally agree with ... gag ... the wannabee tyrant: the filibuster must go. It's a primary reason we are where we are. The People should get what they vote for. For the last 40 years or so, all they've gotten is gridlock. They vote Republican for a neoliberal nirvana - they don't get it because of the filibuster. They vote Democratic for a socialist utopia - they don't get it because of the filibuster. What they learn is "voting doesn't matter". The people should get the ruin or prosperity they vote for so we learn again that we need government and it should be "for We the People".
Great article. Thank you!
I agree with the proposal to reduce the power of the filibuster, though I feel that in certain situations it is useful.
My suggestion is that when we have a 50:50 3-banch government, there should be a delay in the passage of a contentious bill. So I would like to say that a super majority be required to pass a bill "The first time", but if the same bill is resubmitted after a few? Elections, then the re-elected Senate can pass it without the supermajority, e.g., 51:49 (excluding the VP). That way, the 'voters' can see the bill and decide if they want a 'slim majority' to still be in power to pass the delayed bills.
Obviously, this rule needs some tuning, but I think the Filibuster is too strong. In contrast, the immediate simple majority gives voters no chance to influence the passage of dangerous bills.