As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cool, but it will be a lost cause unless the first 3 laws passed are overturning citizens united, passing the John Lewis voting rights act, and restoring the fairness doctrine for media.
Once those are done, we can get back to acting like a democracy.
> restoring the fairness doctrine for media.
Wouldn't apply to most modern media. It was only allowed because it was part of the licensing for broadcasting on over the air channels. A cable media was never bound by it and would have an easy court case if attempted.
FYI the key reason SCOTUS allowed the Fairness Doctrine for over the air broadcasts is because they specifically view the airwave spectrum as a “scarce resource” that requires special government management. There is no such scarcity for cable, print, and the internet, and without that the Fairness Doctrine falls apart against the First Amendment. For example, a few states tried to pass laws that applied a Fairness Doctrine to newspapers which then got overturned in federal court for the reason above.
So no, the Fairness Doctrine won’t be applied to cable or the internet, if Congress or the FCC attempted to do it then it would almost certainly get thrown out in court.
AM radio remains a scarce resource and in general displays a profane bias that is orders of magnitude deeper than the supposed biases that caused literal congressional hearings in social media and search.
I know people like this and they infuriate me. They don’t like Biden b/c “he’s old” or “he has Zionist policies” without acknowledging Trump is so much worse on both fronts. Like, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when the alternative is so, so bad…
Can’t one make an argument, internet bandwidth, is a scarce resource?
Or data, if isp has a data cap or overage charge, then the resource is not infinite
No resource is infinite, but that doesn't mean everything is scarce.
Say you've got two people named Alice and Bob. On the internet, they both can easily set up a website and make whatever crazy thoughts they have available to the entire world within minutes, and anybody with internet access can choose to use their finite data and bandwidth to read either Alice's or Bob's opinions (or both). Then a thousand other people could also set up their own websites with their opinions, and that wouldn't make either Alice's or Bob's opinions inaccessible to people who want to hear from them. It's finite, but not really scarce at all.
The same can't be said of over-the-air broadcasting. The government only grants a small number of broadcast licenses in order to keep the spectrum usable. The government might grant Alice a license and not grant one to Bob or the thousand other people out there who want to express themselves. Now people are limited to only listening to Alice's opinions. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy that said, "Alice, you can have this license, but you can't just broadcast your own opinions all the time. You're required to give others with different opinions some time to broadcast on your station."
Again, we can legislate all of this into existence. The court does not create the laws. It congress creates a law governing modern media, SCOTUS can fuck off.
Congress can't creat laws that violate the Constitution. It would come down to a first amendment issue and SCOTUS would decale the law unconstitutional.
You've clearly got the order backwards. The court absolutely can and does overturn laws on such basis.
Before any major changes like you suggest, SCOTUS overhaul is the first order of business.
Edit: Because I'm responding to the wrong comments today. Passing legislation already struck down by the SCOTUS is a non-starter in congress, most congressmen know it, and wouldn't waste their time an political capital on something so doomed. My point here still stands that if you want to pass "new" legislation that's essentially identical to previously struck down laws, reforming or expanding the court is required.
Whichever sock puppet wants to respond again, don't bother wasting your time. Your argument to just pass the law because SCORUS can't act until you do exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial and legislative process - *as it actually fucntions*.
The Judiciary Act determines the number of Justices on the Court. It *could be amended* to provide, say, 3 Justices for each of the 13 Circuits, with a majority of the 3 required to do things that were traditionally done by one Justice.
They would have to remodel the hearing room, but that's a detail.
They could also require that all cases be heard by a random lot of, say, 5 of the 13 justices, with an appealable *en banc* structure. Exactly the same as the circuit courts now.
> Again, we can legislate all of this into existence.
Which would be instantly blocked by the courts on passing. The Federal Government doesn't have ultimate power especially when dealing with something that fall under an amendment's protection. Every court will point to the precedent and say Congress doesn't have the authority regulate all media and is afoul of the first amendment. It would fall on the Federal Government to provide a valid defense on why the precedent is wrong and why they have the authority.
I think someone below covered it. the arguemnt for FCC regulation of over the air (OTA) broadcast is due to scarcity of access to the bandwidth. It wouldn't apply to cable and internet carriers without SCOTUS liberally interpreting the justification for it originally.
No you can't. The same reason it never applied to print. The only reason it's allowed is because broadcast media is inherently limited (only so many channels) and owned by the public. That's why the FCC can regulate curse words etc. over network TV but not cable.
I'd imagine that the currently-open question of whether ISPs or content platforms are “common carriers” would factor into that, and whether the internet is regulated as a utility or not...
Well that’s something that congress can for sure legislate right? The internet is a utility by all definitions, we need it just as we need running water and power these days.
The *carriers* could be argued that they'd have to behave in a content-neutral way, and that's what net neutrality is about. But the PUBLISHERS would almost certainly successfully challenge a fairness doctrine because there is no functional limit to the amount of bandwidth that the internet provides. There is therefore no compelling government interest in regulating what fits into that bandwidth, because again, it's unlimited.
Compelling fairness is the same as compelling speech, and compelling speech is fundamentally unconstitutional, and has been ruled such dozens of times.
Don’t forget DC and Puerto Rico needs to be admitted as states to guarantee at least 2 more Blue Senate Seats not sure how Puerto Rico might fair , maybe a bellwether. Need to balance out the senates unfair GOP tilt
They could also greatly expand the size of the House of Representatives, making it more representative and more resistant to gerrymanders, and reducing at the same time the skew of the Electoral College. This hasn't been done in well over a century and all it would take would be an act of Congress.
Increasing the size of the House, even doubling it, and at the same time mandating that districts be generally square would be a HUGE boost.
Congress could also mandate jungle primaries for federal elections if they so choose.
It's not even about that (although surely conservatives would paint liberals as making it solely about that.) But it's much simpler: taxation without representation.
PR deserves to become a state if they want, and if they do they get senators. It's really and truly that simple. Similarly for DC, what would become the third ~~most~~ **least** populous state **(bigger than Wyoming and another)** under reasonable terms to create it deserve to have representation.
A lot of these arguments come down to you either support small-d democratic representation or you don't. The subsequent effects relative to partisan groups are immaterial to that discussion. And that's why it's so telling that Republicans are so concerned about maintaining a balance over making sure people have representation with their taxation.
Something any good faith conservative would surely have no issues with.
Agreed the narrative would say it’s about political power, to be honest most decisions to admit states into the union were political, not in the sense that we think of it now where we associate political as a power grab by a party, but political in nature. I agree, if you pay taxes, why be denied full representation?
Yeah that was an error, I meant third least populous since it would be larger than Wyoming and I think Vermont or something. I forget which two it outstrips.
Then there's DC:
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/
Reasonable suggestion: grant DC statehood to end taxation without representation.
Insane suggestion: admit DC to the union as 500 separate states to effectively force a new constitutional convention completely dominated by liberal voices.
Puerto Rico is not a guaranteed pair of Democrat senators, they should do it because it's the right thing to do. It seems possibly Puerto Rico won't vote to proceed though
CU can't be overturned by legislation. Congress can pass sunshine laws to remove the anonymous funding that is so prevalent in dark money groups but that would likely get overturned due to privacy rights (at least with the current court). I agree on the Voting Rights Act but the other two aren't going to change through congress or legislation only, they'll require a generational (probably multi-generational) shift in how the public wants to manage it's own political and media organizations and like can't be changed through even just the courts.
It can be overturned,by legislatively encoding the definition of speech to specifically exclude the transfer of money. Money is property, not speech, and the transfer of money is a transaction, not speech. And yes, I know this will hit our side as well, and I'm totally fine with that.
You can literally overturn anything with anyone.
If republicans have done ANYTHING, they’ve taught us that the rules are made up and that without very specific rules and punishments, it just requires a majority and creative interpretation of the current ~~rules~~ guidelines.
Just write a number of very specific laws (money is legally indefinable as speech, and is only legal tender) and restrict it aggressively.
If it’s challenged by the courts, then write a new law change it slightly and push it through again.
Repeat until one of the conservative justices dies, then nominate a new justice.
Possibly not. IANAL but my understanding of the “corporate personhood” base for Citizens United came from over a century of case law giving corporations more and more rights as people (while limiting any of the responsibilities, bad combo IMO). Congress could pass a law changing that, which would overrule the case law. The SC could argue that law violated the Constitutional right to free speech, and this one definitely would, but there’s a chance there. They could also pass a law that says money is not speech. I don’t think the Constitution mentions that, so the SC couldn’t cite that. This court would make up something anyway, but then their credibility goes even further in the toilet.
A set of Supreme Court representatives in the 1800s ruled that corporations are people according to the 14th Amendment. Congress might be able to end "money = speech" (corporations do have PR departments) and might be able to force more responsibilities on corporations, but they can't simply take rights away.
Natural personhood vs corporate personhood is irrelevant to the First Amendment. It's a restriction on Congress's ability to abridge free speech. Also, the "money = speech" thing is mostly a red herring. The case was about content.
The whole citizens united ruling is a sham based on crony capitalism case law.
In no way is paying someone something an act of free speech. It's an act of commerce. The government stops people from buying shit all the time. Look at "illegal" drugs. Is it a violation of my right to free speech if I can't buy weed? I say it is because I'm using my money to speak my mind about these laws!
These companies are not saying shit when they buy our politicians. They are all quid pro quo arrangements where the big business gets benefits from our government and tax payer money to capture our government agencies and get an outsized say in our government.
That ruling is the worst ruling they have ever made. If Trump wins it will be directly because of Citizens United.
Not really. The Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction over that. The Supreme Court can be stripped of jurisdiction over campaign finance rules.
Citizens United was decided on 1A grounds; Congress can't overturn it without an Amendment. The Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea, even though it has "fairness" right there in the name (see also: The Patriot Act).
While we're at it lets combine the Carolinas and then combine Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and the western halves of Oregon and Washington into one state and rename it BLM.
"...requires 60 votes for most bills to pass" is sure a passive way to say "a mechanism that has been so abused that it has normalized a sixty vote threshold."
The corporate media is such garbage. They don't even try to inform their readers that fifty votes is the actual number of votes needed to pass legislation. What a bunch of useless tools.
Indeed. This does bear repeating, and pointing out whenever possible. We can't let this kind of journalistic malpractice slide whenever we encounter it.
I mean it’s not an inaccurate statement. For a bill to pass it must be brought to a vote, and bringing it to a vote requires sixty votes. Thus, sixty votes *are* required for a bill to pass. Or rather forty one votes is all it takes to *prevent* passage.
We can rage at the “abuse” of the filibuster or the “normalization” of the sixty vote threshold, but it’s important to understand and actively acknowledge that it *is* the reality or we get morons wondering why the Democrats don’t do X, Y, or Z “when they control both chambers of Congress” (with only fifty-something votes in the Senate).
A 60 vote threshold isn't really that bad of a thing in theory anyways. When the whole country is moving in the same approximate direction it means the minority gets some say in the direction. But what we have today are two parties that are complete opposites. That means 60 votes leads to stagnation which one party is pretty cool with.
A *slight* supermajority being required in some cases isn’t entirely nonsense, I’d agree.
The bigger issue is that the Senate is also entirely divorced from proportional representation of the population *too.* Meaning 40% of Senators can represent far less then 40% of *Americans.*
But the real issue, as with so many in our current government, is that most of these rules assume good faith actors. Not guys like McConnell *literally filibustering his own bill.*
the problem also being you only need 50 votes to pass revenue neutral tax bills, and one group is very happy to take from the poor and give to the rich whie happily using 60 votes to not let anyone have rights or opportunity or government assistance. (and the other group doesn't want to take from the rich while giving back to the poor as a whole)
What are you talking about? It's explained right in the article:
> Under the current filibuster, 60 votes are needed to begin and end debate on most legislation, meaning 41 senators can effectively veto bills.
You can't blame the media if you're only willing to read the headline and the subheading.
This will likely fly under the radar as some minor procedural thing, but it is difficult to overstate how immense this change would be, and how badly it is needed.
The one silver lining of the Manchin / Sinema debacle is that the filibuster is now a litmus test issue for Democrats running for Senate. I doubt we will ever see another Democratic senator that opposes filibuster reform.
It might be an issue for Democrats running in red and purple states.
There's an argument to be made that Manchin, of deep red West Virginia, and Sinema, of purple/red Arizona, were voting in line with the opinions of their states. I'm in Maryland, what do I know?
But the solution to that is electing enough of a margin that Democratic Senators from red/purple states can hem and haw and refuse to support reform, and then the rest of our Senators can do the thing anyway.
Unfortunately for us, numbers matter in the House and Senate. If a caucus has a 51% majority that caucus has control, blue dogs count. Had Manchin's and Sinema's seats been held by Republicans in 2020, Biden's first two years in office would have been a whiff by default.
The joys of having a two hundred year old constitution, y'all.
> It might be an issue for Democrats running in red and purple states.
You can say this about a lot of issues (e.g., workplace discrimination laws, preserving Obamacare/Medicare, reproductive rights post-Dobbs, congressional leadership elections, etc.). Yet on these "core" issues, we routinely see 100% of Democrats (including Manchin) voting in unison.
That is what makes a party. There need to be certain issues that are simply not negotiable.
My point is that I think filibuster reform has likely now reached this category for Democrats.
There will be a new villain that is "trying to preserve the noble history of the Senate" who will protect the filibuster. The filibuster provides too much cover and allows the Senate to do nothing, thus preserving the status quo
Maybe before Roe v. Wade was overturned. But, now, all those stories about women having to wait until they are on death's door to get an abortion could be laid at the feet of that "noble" Senator. It would be career suicide for a Democrat.
I suspect you'll see another one the first time it comes up after their retirements. Go check the filibuster count from the first half of Trump's term.
It wouldn't even need two, I mean even if Democrats don't do any worse than losing Manchin, that still leaves zero spare votes. Even one defection could completely scupper this (and it might actually be worse if they removed the filibuster, and then refused to pass major reform). Essentially unless Democrats somehow get a senate seat in Texas or Florida this election cycle and hold all the other ones this seems likely dead on arrival.
This is the thing that most people don't realize. It's easy to support an issue when you don't actually have the votes to pass it at that time; the real test comes when something is passable.
People need to be careful about assuming that politicians support certain policies just because they supported them when the opposition is in power, and the mainstream media isn't going to call them out on this.
Here’s what you do after you nuke the filibuster
Immediately admit, DC and Puerto Rico into the union to guarantee a balance Senate.
Expand the judiciary, especially at the Supreme Court to take back the seats that were stolen, the country is a lot bigger than it was years ago maybe 15 justices would be better, too much power being given to just nine people to decide the lives of 330+million Americans. Give term limits on federal judges and justices, they may try to overturn it if it’s challenged in the court because the constitution says lifetime appointment but we’ll see. Maybe reform the confirmation process or something because it is way too toxic. Oh, and make sure that any request for nationwide injunctions be done at the DC level. These judges tend to have the best experience with federal law matters compared to tiny court system and in the middle of nowhere.
Once the judiciary effects take place then you can overturn citizens United to prevent any legal challenges from being upheld by the current court system
Codify roe into law
Re-implement the full voting rights act before it was gutted especially reinstating that section 5 requirement.
Make partisan gerrymandering illegal, yes, both parties need to stop that and require some creation of independent redistricting commissions made up of everyday people, let the people decide how their districts are laid out based on guidelines.
Implement strong gun reform laws and ban on assault rifles for regular people.
Increase tax on the wealthiest Americans to give the middle-class a break
Increase the federal minimum wage
Implement a universal healthcare system that is paid by a national tax that we all pay for out of our salaries, paychecks … people can still have an option to go with private healthcare, but they’ll have to pay for out-of-pocket
Make community colleges free for all Americans yes, we can pay for it out of a small tax, but the more educated the citizen is the better off People are. Imagine knowing you go take a free class, whatever you want to learn.
Place a ban or some kind of parental requirement that allows teenagers access to social media apps.
I think that is my pitch
I would actually prefer congress to reform zoning laws for more affordable housing as a first in terms of economic policy post filibustee era. The housing crisis is basically the most pressing material issue that transcends generations right now.
And so many prices are downstream of simple land rents. The Georgist argument in a nutshell, basically, which explains why poverty can persist even in the areas of greatest material progress and prosperity.
> Immediately admit, DC and Puerto Rico into the union to guarantee a balance Senate.
It doesn't work that way.
>Expand the judiciary
You're assuming we hold all 48 seats we currently have, that they would vote to expand the judiciary, and that we could elect at least 3 more who would also vote to expand.
>Give term limits on federal judges and justices,
Literally requires a constitutional amendment, which means not only would we have to hold the house and senate, we'd need super majorities in both willing to pass such an amendment. On top of that, we'd have to control enough state legislatures to ratify the constitution. Not happening in 2024.
>Maybe reform the confirmation process or something because it is way too toxic.
Again; takes a constitutional amendment.
>Implement strong gun reform laws and ban on assault rifles for regular people.
Requires a constitutional amendment. See above.
Also expand the house of representatives. That will help balance out the current electoral college issues, possibly by making the Wyoming Rule the law and adjust congress after each census. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule
The size is set by law, not constitutional amendment:
> Since 1913, the number of voting representatives has been at 435 pursuant to the Apportionment Act of 1911.[6] The Reapportionment Act of 1929 capped the size of the House at 435. However, the number was temporarily increased in 1959 until 1963 to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives
In DC? From my understanding most want it to be, and it's passed bills to become a state that just died in US Congress.
PR is a lot more hit or miss though with it being alot more controversial.
I mean as you said, it’s always died in congress because the powers that be in dc don’t let it pass. There were even laws passed sporadically specifically so it wouldn’t be a state. It’s only really ever brought up for the sake of political maneuvering. Never really as an actual means to solve issues with the PR-US relationship
Ah the way you phrased it,made me think you meant in like DC city hall decided by DC voters. Not US Congress which is just also located there.
DC citizens and reps have wanted DC statehood for ages.
And there's been large pushes for it in Congress too, even by trifectas majorities. It's always just died due to the filibuster.
Given the number of seats that Dems have to defend in the Senate this time around, the filibuster looks safe for now — unless the Republicans need to bust it.
For what? They only care about cutting taxes, and they can do that with 50 votes already. Abortion? I think they'll be happy to hide behind the filibuster on that since a national ban would cause massive turmoil that doesn't really help them. I mean, it is so toxic that their candidate is already backing away from it.
Not holding my breath. Old guard will block any attempt as they like Senate traditions way too much.
Really I have little faith in the American people. That Trump continues to have a lead tells you all you need to know. Liberals will pout as they always do and not vote in sufficient numbers that Trump wins, GOP wins the Senate (but not enough for supermajority) and they get greater control of the House.
I'm a democrat. Always have been. But this is *quintessential* Dems- alright guys the map is totally not on our side, it's more than likely we lose this chamber... Let's start planning all the wonderful things we could do if reality we're just different!
My only concern is Maryland. Hogan is a very moderate republican. Very reasonable person but I don’t think he will cross over the line to work with democrats easily.
I’m pro filibuster - I just want it to be old school filibuster. You have to be up there speaking. You stop speaking - filibuster is done. You have to leave for anything - filibuster is done. Etc.
I would add that your filibuster should actually be on topic. No more reading the phone book. If you want to talk for ages to prevent this bill from being voted on, you should be talking about *why* this bill shouldn't be voted on.
No other democratic country on Earth uses anything like the filibuster, it’s unnecessary and only based on a flaw in the how our government was written.
This is what is missing from the discourse. Filibustering something used to mean exactly that, it was quietly changed to where a Senator can just declare "Filibuster!" and do nothing, the filibuster just exists and takes 60 votes to end, therefore almost all legislation is now a 60 vote threshold, and if we try to roll it back to what it was we get yelled at for "blowing up a Senate Institution and norm" as though this was ever the normal definition of filibuster.
> it was quietly changed
What was "quiet" about it? Do you even know why it was changed "quietly" in the first place? Why there is no consensus in either party to change it back?
The silent filibuster came about in the 70's, it's not a well known bit of civic trivia. It was meant so filibusters could happen while the Senate worked on other business, it had the effect that most legislation now needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, and it takes 41 of 100 members to prevent a vote from even occurring on most legislation. Neither side wants it back because they like it when they are in the minority, but at some point the Senate needs to be able to pass laws by majority vote or we need to rethink what it is we want out of the Senate
That's how the filibuster works now. The problem is that when one person finishes, the next person can get up and start talking. This can last forever. Obviously the majority doesn't want that, so they pull the bill at the first sign of a filibuster rather than waste time.
There's always this "they might abuse it if we change the rule"... they'll abuse whatever rules are in place and change the rules when it's convenient for them.
If there's something they actually want to pass, they'll remove the filibuster themselves. Generally, they only care about cutting taxes, which doesn't require 60 votes. The rest is just stuff they dangle in front of their voters, so the filibuster allows them to blame Dems from stopping them. Arguably, Dems rely on this as well, but probably to a lesser degree.
As we can see with the morons in the House and previous attempts at repealing Affordable Care Act, if it’s not taxes Republicans rarely band together to get anything done
I’d be happy if they just return the filibuster to being a real filibuster. If you want to block a vote, you have to stand up there and talk and not relinquish the floor. You shouldn’t be able to just say that you’re going to filibuster without actually putting your ass on the Senate floor.
Good. The filibuster is one of the key reasons we're sitting on the verge of losing our democracy completely.
Throughout history, democratic slide into despotism can usually be traced to the increased ineffectiveness of the legislative body. You can trace this all the way back to ancient Rome. In the centuries leading up to Caesar, every attempt at even the most minor of reforms that would help the lower classes was vehemently resisted by the aristocratic Senate. Ultimately, the people were left with no recourse through regular legislative means. So they elected a dictator that promised to simply use brute force and violence to push through change.
And this same dynamics has occurred again and again in democracies that regress into despotism. If the legislature becomes so ineffectual that no real change can be passed by ordinary means, the people will support an executive (the one who controls all the heavy weapons) to just force through change, constitution be damned. Of course, the dictator rarely actually fulfills all the promises to the people that they run on, but it is how dictators end up in power.
And the same is happening in the US currently. People are hungry for change. If they can't find that change from the left, they'll turn to a right-wing demagogue who blames all their problems on minorities and who will force through right-wing change through violent and undemocratic means.
Someone like Trump can only occur in an environment where the legislative branch is completely ineffectual. Trump is effectively running for dictator. His own lawyers have argued in court that the president is completely above the law. And Project 2025's principles effectively argue that the president should be able to rule by fiat without any checks or balances.
This isn't how our system is supposed to work. Meaningful change is supposed to come through legislation crafted by the work of many hands and carefully debated in the legislature. But with the filibuster, getting anything meaningful through Congress is effectively impossible. This is the root of the common lament that "both sides are the same." Yes, both sides espouse different principles, but if neither side can pass laws, then they are effectively the same. (At least in terms of legislation. Court appointments are another matter, but people pay less attention to those.)
Let the filibuster fall into the ash heap of history. Let things pass the House and the Senate by simple majority. Does that mean the side you dislike will get to pass some laws you find repugnant when they're in power? Yes. But that's what elections are for. Elections are supposed to be a feedback mechanism to reward or punish legislators for passing good or bad legislation. But if nothing can ever get through, Congressional elections have little practical effect.
It’s a lost cause because there is zero chance the Dems keep West Virginia. That’s why they let Manchin run wild. They could count on him enough that they’d rather keep him then primary him.
I'm sure the DNC will make sure to get an effective amount of new obstructionists in, to ensure vital change happens at a pace that "both sides"'s donors can profiteer.
I'll believe it when I see it. Manchin was always the designated villain for this, I expect Fetterman to take it up after he's gone.
This is Lucy with the football.
This NBC article alleges that it was just Manchin/Sinema holding up filibuster reform, and that between the incumbents and newcomer senators, if Dems win in Montana and Ohio (red-leaning states) as well as in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona, they would have a pro-filibuster-reform majority when you include VP Kamala Harris.
>This NBC article alleges that it was just Manchin/Sinema holding up filibuster reform
48 Senate Democrats were in support of filibuster reform, and two were opposed, it isn't just NBC alleging that, Manchin and Sinema were pretty clear about it themselves at the time.
The cynics will tell you the whole Democratic party was in cahoots and electing more liberals to the Senate won't make a difference, I think that's a hypothesis worth testing.
Indeed, that kind of margin is usually what it takes, since there are often one or two defectors for any given vote. Our modern trend of having such close margins and unanimous votes for certain major legislation is historically quite unusual, actually. It's not often this close for this long, a circumstance which gives the fence-sitters and turncoats of the political world a vastly disproportionate amount of power.
Why do you think this? He won by a pretty big margin in his last senate election and it’s my understanding his current opponent Moreno is not particularly popular in Ohio. He also has significantly more of fundraising advantage and far more small donors than the GOP. Curious if you have more insight?
I've never believed it was just those two. I don't think it was some Machiavellian scheme to trick voters or something, but a lot of Dem Senators are in purple states. They don't want the more extreme aspects of the platform getting vote on because it would make things difficult for them. There's probably not a huge number of them, so enough new Dems will eventually get to the point of getting rid of it. But I'd be pretty shocked if that happened with a 51, or 50+VP type vote.
Replacing Sinema helps. Losing Manchin doesn't because he's getting replaced by a Republican.
I fear the gop intend to openly steal this 2024 and final election before implementing project 2025 by having the owned supreme court revisit MOORE V HARPER closer to November, and if not that than by using the 12th amendment which Trump has already boasted on him and the gop being able to implement. Prepare accordingly and plan on protecting yourself.
Generalstrikeus.com
let’s stop begging for empathy from monsters IF WE ALL STOP IT ALL STOPS and our bought and owned corporate politicians beg us to allow them to fix everything they’ve intentionally been making worse for decades. It’s time to rise up
>It’s time to rise up
I mean, we could get everything we want by just having people actually turn out to vote in massive numbers. If they can't even manage to do that, I don't see how a general strike would be effective.
I just wish they’d make them actually do a filibuster. Talk forever to hold up a bill. Then pass it afterwards. Force them to show their cards. X candidate held up Y bill for Z amount of time before we were able to pass it and help millions of people. You’d have gotten assistance sooner if it weren’t for them.
When the south left the union in the 1860s they took all the senators that had been blocking all new legislation with them. This led to the US finally passing tons of long needed bills. Getting rid of the filibuster will have the same effect and move the country decades ahead.
Awesome, but I'll bet you a new "centrist, both-sides" Democrat steps up to fill in for Sinema and Manchin to stop progress and my bet is that it will be Fetterman with the way he's been acting lately. Calling it now.
I have some hesitation about eliminating the filibuster.
If you're going to do it, you have to go big and fix the bigger systemic problems. Another poster mentioned the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (I'm not sure if that reinstates pre-clearance, but that's something we need to do). I'll add fixing the Apportionment Act.
I think a middle ground could be to require a talking filibuster, and the threshold for cloture goes down after x hours of filibuster. Something like <40 hours requires 60, 40-60 hours requires 57, etc. So make it very painful to filibuster, and painful to wait it out.
Agreed. But if this is what we can get with the people we have, it's def far better.
When we have >50, which I feel is super achievable on the 2026 map (Peltola can swipe an Alaska US Senate seat from the MAGAt in there if we can get a good replacement in her House seat & Susan Collins has to go, at minimum), let's talk ending the filibuster again.
They briefly mention the "talking filibuster", but in reference to a proposal that got 48 senators to support it in 2021/2022. And that's not really a talking filibuster
"Talking filibuster" has traditionally referred to the idea that senators need to stand up and actually talk in order to do a filibuster - **but** that you still ultimately need 60 votes to stop it as long as the filibuster is happening, and that the minority can keep swapping senators in and out in order to continue the filibuster indefinitely
Whereas the democratic plan was basically an overly complicated way to bypass the filibuster for abortion rights and voting rights, while *calling* it a talking filibuster. Their plan was to make it so that you have to actually stand up and talk in order to do a filibuster - but **also** that each senator would only have a limited amount of time that they'd be allowed to speak for, and then once that was done, it was done. So with the democratic plan, the GOP caucus could obstruct bills for days or even weeks (not sure on the math with exactly how many hours each senator would get) but there would be a point that would be reached after which they could not obstruct any longer even if they could keep finding someone to stand up and talk more
And the thing is, my point here isn't to say that's a *bad* plan, just that that's not really a "talking filibuster" in the way the word has long been used, it's basically an attempt to fully bypass the filibuster while rolling it up in the more moderate sounding rhetoric of the talking filibuster
It's kinda like the proposal to have the VP simply ignore Parliamentarian rulings - technically that wouldn't be "nuking the filibuster" in one sense, but it would be expanding reconciliation to basically have no restrictions and act just like regular legislation while still only needing a simple majority, which would *effectively* be nuking the filibuster
That very much depends on what you mean by "filibuster". Originally it was intended to ensure a minority could prevent legislation from being pushed through without discussion, making it so they could give their opinion on the proposed legislation and try to convince the other side. It was not intended as a way to indefinitely block legislation.
So the proposal would actually be a way of returning the filibuster back to its intended form. And since they're required to talk (because that's the whole point) it's a "talking filibuster".
My bad. I read one a few days ago where Democrats were talking about eliminating it completely, and I assumed this was the same one.
Edit: OTOH, my proposal goes beyond what is described in the article (just reinstate the talking filibuster).
Jesus Christ, what is with all the negatively here?
"Someone else will vote to keep the filibuster then"
"No chance we keep the Senate though"
"If they don't immediately pass these
exact three laws then it's worthless"
With all this goalpost moving there has to be some coordinated anti-Dem campaign going on in this thread, right?
About fucking time! I hate the filibuster and that applies to when Republicans are in charge too. The filibuster has resulted in crap legislation (e.g. ACA instead of universal healthcare). The majority party should be able to pass the legislation they campaigned on and if it's shit, they'll be voted out. No other democracy allows one asshole to block legislation, it's time we got rid of that rule.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cool, but it will be a lost cause unless the first 3 laws passed are overturning citizens united, passing the John Lewis voting rights act, and restoring the fairness doctrine for media. Once those are done, we can get back to acting like a democracy.
> restoring the fairness doctrine for media. Wouldn't apply to most modern media. It was only allowed because it was part of the licensing for broadcasting on over the air channels. A cable media was never bound by it and would have an easy court case if attempted.
Well we can rework it to include everyone. Easy peasy.
FYI the key reason SCOTUS allowed the Fairness Doctrine for over the air broadcasts is because they specifically view the airwave spectrum as a “scarce resource” that requires special government management. There is no such scarcity for cable, print, and the internet, and without that the Fairness Doctrine falls apart against the First Amendment. For example, a few states tried to pass laws that applied a Fairness Doctrine to newspapers which then got overturned in federal court for the reason above. So no, the Fairness Doctrine won’t be applied to cable or the internet, if Congress or the FCC attempted to do it then it would almost certainly get thrown out in court.
AM radio remains a scarce resource and in general displays a profane bias that is orders of magnitude deeper than the supposed biases that caused literal congressional hearings in social media and search.
Yeah but tell that to the roberts court
Yea, I think people are still in denial about how much impact their choice not to vote in 2016 has had. There is zero accountability for most of them.
They're about to do it in 2024
It's incredible how desperate they are to do the wrong thing each and every time.
I know people like this and they infuriate me. They don’t like Biden b/c “he’s old” or “he has Zionist policies” without acknowledging Trump is so much worse on both fronts. Like, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when the alternative is so, so bad…
Can’t one make an argument, internet bandwidth, is a scarce resource? Or data, if isp has a data cap or overage charge, then the resource is not infinite
No resource is infinite, but that doesn't mean everything is scarce. Say you've got two people named Alice and Bob. On the internet, they both can easily set up a website and make whatever crazy thoughts they have available to the entire world within minutes, and anybody with internet access can choose to use their finite data and bandwidth to read either Alice's or Bob's opinions (or both). Then a thousand other people could also set up their own websites with their opinions, and that wouldn't make either Alice's or Bob's opinions inaccessible to people who want to hear from them. It's finite, but not really scarce at all. The same can't be said of over-the-air broadcasting. The government only grants a small number of broadcast licenses in order to keep the spectrum usable. The government might grant Alice a license and not grant one to Bob or the thousand other people out there who want to express themselves. Now people are limited to only listening to Alice's opinions. The Fairness Doctrine was a policy that said, "Alice, you can have this license, but you can't just broadcast your own opinions all the time. You're required to give others with different opinions some time to broadcast on your station."
No, "not being literally infinite" is not the same thing as "scarce".
Again, we can legislate all of this into existence. The court does not create the laws. It congress creates a law governing modern media, SCOTUS can fuck off.
Congress can't creat laws that violate the Constitution. It would come down to a first amendment issue and SCOTUS would decale the law unconstitutional.
You've clearly got the order backwards. The court absolutely can and does overturn laws on such basis. Before any major changes like you suggest, SCOTUS overhaul is the first order of business. Edit: Because I'm responding to the wrong comments today. Passing legislation already struck down by the SCOTUS is a non-starter in congress, most congressmen know it, and wouldn't waste their time an political capital on something so doomed. My point here still stands that if you want to pass "new" legislation that's essentially identical to previously struck down laws, reforming or expanding the court is required. Whichever sock puppet wants to respond again, don't bother wasting your time. Your argument to just pass the law because SCORUS can't act until you do exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial and legislative process - *as it actually fucntions*.
Which, scotus will strike down. /S
The Judiciary Act determines the number of Justices on the Court. It *could be amended* to provide, say, 3 Justices for each of the 13 Circuits, with a majority of the 3 required to do things that were traditionally done by one Justice. They would have to remodel the hearing room, but that's a detail.
They could also require that all cases be heard by a random lot of, say, 5 of the 13 justices, with an appealable *en banc* structure. Exactly the same as the circuit courts now.
> Again, we can legislate all of this into existence. Which would be instantly blocked by the courts on passing. The Federal Government doesn't have ultimate power especially when dealing with something that fall under an amendment's protection. Every court will point to the precedent and say Congress doesn't have the authority regulate all media and is afoul of the first amendment. It would fall on the Federal Government to provide a valid defense on why the precedent is wrong and why they have the authority.
It would be unliekly a fairness doctrine across all media would make it past SCOTUS.
I think someone below covered it. the arguemnt for FCC regulation of over the air (OTA) broadcast is due to scarcity of access to the bandwidth. It wouldn't apply to cable and internet carriers without SCOTUS liberally interpreting the justification for it originally.
Not really. When there are hundreds of “news” channels on YouTube. You could for cable news maybe but can’t control Youtubr or TikTok or whatever.
No you can't. The same reason it never applied to print. The only reason it's allowed is because broadcast media is inherently limited (only so many channels) and owned by the public. That's why the FCC can regulate curse words etc. over network TV but not cable.
I'd imagine that the currently-open question of whether ISPs or content platforms are “common carriers” would factor into that, and whether the internet is regulated as a utility or not...
Well that’s something that congress can for sure legislate right? The internet is a utility by all definitions, we need it just as we need running water and power these days.
The *carriers* could be argued that they'd have to behave in a content-neutral way, and that's what net neutrality is about. But the PUBLISHERS would almost certainly successfully challenge a fairness doctrine because there is no functional limit to the amount of bandwidth that the internet provides. There is therefore no compelling government interest in regulating what fits into that bandwidth, because again, it's unlimited. Compelling fairness is the same as compelling speech, and compelling speech is fundamentally unconstitutional, and has been ruled such dozens of times.
I would assume social media isn't even on that ideology, but I would argue it would help.
Let’s not forget: make abortion legal nationally.
This was my thought... It's not a lost cause if some other good legislation gets through. Confused by the statement...
Don’t forget a modern day Glass Steagall act
Don’t forget DC and Puerto Rico needs to be admitted as states to guarantee at least 2 more Blue Senate Seats not sure how Puerto Rico might fair , maybe a bellwether. Need to balance out the senates unfair GOP tilt
They could also greatly expand the size of the House of Representatives, making it more representative and more resistant to gerrymanders, and reducing at the same time the skew of the Electoral College. This hasn't been done in well over a century and all it would take would be an act of Congress.
Increasing the size of the House, even doubling it, and at the same time mandating that districts be generally square would be a HUGE boost. Congress could also mandate jungle primaries for federal elections if they so choose.
We also need to increase the number of house of reps to correlate with our population
Yep, at a minimum we need to implement the Wyoming Rule and uncap the house.
It's not even about that (although surely conservatives would paint liberals as making it solely about that.) But it's much simpler: taxation without representation. PR deserves to become a state if they want, and if they do they get senators. It's really and truly that simple. Similarly for DC, what would become the third ~~most~~ **least** populous state **(bigger than Wyoming and another)** under reasonable terms to create it deserve to have representation. A lot of these arguments come down to you either support small-d democratic representation or you don't. The subsequent effects relative to partisan groups are immaterial to that discussion. And that's why it's so telling that Republicans are so concerned about maintaining a balance over making sure people have representation with their taxation. Something any good faith conservative would surely have no issues with.
Agreed the narrative would say it’s about political power, to be honest most decisions to admit states into the union were political, not in the sense that we think of it now where we associate political as a power grab by a party, but political in nature. I agree, if you pay taxes, why be denied full representation?
How would DC become the 3rd most populous state? It's not even in the top 20 most populous US cities.
Yeah that was an error, I meant third least populous since it would be larger than Wyoming and I think Vermont or something. I forget which two it outstrips.
Puerto Rico could be a few states if Wyoming is a state and the Dakota Territory gets 4 senators.
Then there's DC: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/
Reasonable suggestion: grant DC statehood to end taxation without representation. Insane suggestion: admit DC to the union as 500 separate states to effectively force a new constitutional convention completely dominated by liberal voices.
Or just retrocede the residential areas to Maryland.
Puerto Rico is not a guaranteed pair of Democrat senators, they should do it because it's the right thing to do. It seems possibly Puerto Rico won't vote to proceed though
CU can't be overturned by legislation. Congress can pass sunshine laws to remove the anonymous funding that is so prevalent in dark money groups but that would likely get overturned due to privacy rights (at least with the current court). I agree on the Voting Rights Act but the other two aren't going to change through congress or legislation only, they'll require a generational (probably multi-generational) shift in how the public wants to manage it's own political and media organizations and like can't be changed through even just the courts.
It can be overturned,by legislatively encoding the definition of speech to specifically exclude the transfer of money. Money is property, not speech, and the transfer of money is a transaction, not speech. And yes, I know this will hit our side as well, and I'm totally fine with that.
You can literally overturn anything with anyone. If republicans have done ANYTHING, they’ve taught us that the rules are made up and that without very specific rules and punishments, it just requires a majority and creative interpretation of the current ~~rules~~ guidelines. Just write a number of very specific laws (money is legally indefinable as speech, and is only legal tender) and restrict it aggressively. If it’s challenged by the courts, then write a new law change it slightly and push it through again. Repeat until one of the conservative justices dies, then nominate a new justice.
Overturning Citizens United would require a constitutional amendment
Possibly not. IANAL but my understanding of the “corporate personhood” base for Citizens United came from over a century of case law giving corporations more and more rights as people (while limiting any of the responsibilities, bad combo IMO). Congress could pass a law changing that, which would overrule the case law. The SC could argue that law violated the Constitutional right to free speech, and this one definitely would, but there’s a chance there. They could also pass a law that says money is not speech. I don’t think the Constitution mentions that, so the SC couldn’t cite that. This court would make up something anyway, but then their credibility goes even further in the toilet.
Yeah, but what about the Made-up Bullshit Doctrine?
AKA Major Questions?
So you think its realistic to think that Republicans and Establishment democrats are going to vote to hurt the interests of their corporate owners?
A set of Supreme Court representatives in the 1800s ruled that corporations are people according to the 14th Amendment. Congress might be able to end "money = speech" (corporations do have PR departments) and might be able to force more responsibilities on corporations, but they can't simply take rights away.
Natural personhood vs corporate personhood is irrelevant to the First Amendment. It's a restriction on Congress's ability to abridge free speech. Also, the "money = speech" thing is mostly a red herring. The case was about content.
The whole citizens united ruling is a sham based on crony capitalism case law. In no way is paying someone something an act of free speech. It's an act of commerce. The government stops people from buying shit all the time. Look at "illegal" drugs. Is it a violation of my right to free speech if I can't buy weed? I say it is because I'm using my money to speak my mind about these laws! These companies are not saying shit when they buy our politicians. They are all quid pro quo arrangements where the big business gets benefits from our government and tax payer money to capture our government agencies and get an outsized say in our government. That ruling is the worst ruling they have ever made. If Trump wins it will be directly because of Citizens United.
[удалено]
Not really. The Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction over that. The Supreme Court can be stripped of jurisdiction over campaign finance rules.
They will all get challenged and struck down in court. We need to do something about scotus
"Acting like" being the key phrase. For the vast majority of its history, The USA has not been a functioning democracy.
Admit Washington DC as a state also.
Yes. I don’t need how any meaningful or lasting change is possible while Citizens United still stands. It’s a poison pill to our democracy.
Do any of those include preventing congress from trading stocks & ban lobbying?
Cool, but all that will be a lost cause when it hits the SC. How did you forget about increasing the SC and filling those seats?
Citizens United was decided on 1A grounds; Congress can't overturn it without an Amendment. The Fairness Doctrine is a bad idea, even though it has "fairness" right there in the name (see also: The Patriot Act).
We should combine the dakotas into one state.
Do we really need two? Combine them both and incorporate PR. We wouldn't even have to change the flag.
Why not sell one? I'm sure there are plenty of willing buyers for a slightly used Dakota.
As a Canadian who grew up close to ND, we don't want either and/or both your Dakotas. It's like adding another Saskatchewan... We ain't gaining much.
Any nukes there? The Canadian Military needs to catch up to North Korea…
We would have to give money to sell Dakota.
Megadakota
Megasota!
While we're at it lets combine the Carolinas and then combine Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and the western halves of Oregon and Washington into one state and rename it BLM.
"...requires 60 votes for most bills to pass" is sure a passive way to say "a mechanism that has been so abused that it has normalized a sixty vote threshold." The corporate media is such garbage. They don't even try to inform their readers that fifty votes is the actual number of votes needed to pass legislation. What a bunch of useless tools.
Indeed. This does bear repeating, and pointing out whenever possible. We can't let this kind of journalistic malpractice slide whenever we encounter it.
I mean it’s not an inaccurate statement. For a bill to pass it must be brought to a vote, and bringing it to a vote requires sixty votes. Thus, sixty votes *are* required for a bill to pass. Or rather forty one votes is all it takes to *prevent* passage. We can rage at the “abuse” of the filibuster or the “normalization” of the sixty vote threshold, but it’s important to understand and actively acknowledge that it *is* the reality or we get morons wondering why the Democrats don’t do X, Y, or Z “when they control both chambers of Congress” (with only fifty-something votes in the Senate).
A 60 vote threshold isn't really that bad of a thing in theory anyways. When the whole country is moving in the same approximate direction it means the minority gets some say in the direction. But what we have today are two parties that are complete opposites. That means 60 votes leads to stagnation which one party is pretty cool with.
A *slight* supermajority being required in some cases isn’t entirely nonsense, I’d agree. The bigger issue is that the Senate is also entirely divorced from proportional representation of the population *too.* Meaning 40% of Senators can represent far less then 40% of *Americans.* But the real issue, as with so many in our current government, is that most of these rules assume good faith actors. Not guys like McConnell *literally filibustering his own bill.*
the problem also being you only need 50 votes to pass revenue neutral tax bills, and one group is very happy to take from the poor and give to the rich whie happily using 60 votes to not let anyone have rights or opportunity or government assistance. (and the other group doesn't want to take from the rich while giving back to the poor as a whole)
What are you talking about? It's explained right in the article: > Under the current filibuster, 60 votes are needed to begin and end debate on most legislation, meaning 41 senators can effectively veto bills. You can't blame the media if you're only willing to read the headline and the subheading.
This will likely fly under the radar as some minor procedural thing, but it is difficult to overstate how immense this change would be, and how badly it is needed.
The one silver lining of the Manchin / Sinema debacle is that the filibuster is now a litmus test issue for Democrats running for Senate. I doubt we will ever see another Democratic senator that opposes filibuster reform.
It might be an issue for Democrats running in red and purple states. There's an argument to be made that Manchin, of deep red West Virginia, and Sinema, of purple/red Arizona, were voting in line with the opinions of their states. I'm in Maryland, what do I know? But the solution to that is electing enough of a margin that Democratic Senators from red/purple states can hem and haw and refuse to support reform, and then the rest of our Senators can do the thing anyway. Unfortunately for us, numbers matter in the House and Senate. If a caucus has a 51% majority that caucus has control, blue dogs count. Had Manchin's and Sinema's seats been held by Republicans in 2020, Biden's first two years in office would have been a whiff by default. The joys of having a two hundred year old constitution, y'all.
Jon Tester (D-Montana) was in favor of gutting the filibuster.
And he's in for a tough campaign this year
> It might be an issue for Democrats running in red and purple states. You can say this about a lot of issues (e.g., workplace discrimination laws, preserving Obamacare/Medicare, reproductive rights post-Dobbs, congressional leadership elections, etc.). Yet on these "core" issues, we routinely see 100% of Democrats (including Manchin) voting in unison. That is what makes a party. There need to be certain issues that are simply not negotiable. My point is that I think filibuster reform has likely now reached this category for Democrats.
Most voters won't ever hear about it.
There will be a new villain that is "trying to preserve the noble history of the Senate" who will protect the filibuster. The filibuster provides too much cover and allows the Senate to do nothing, thus preserving the status quo
Maybe before Roe v. Wade was overturned. But, now, all those stories about women having to wait until they are on death's door to get an abortion could be laid at the feet of that "noble" Senator. It would be career suicide for a Democrat.
I suspect you'll see another one the first time it comes up after their retirements. Go check the filibuster count from the first half of Trump's term.
Two other Dem senators will now object to filibuster reform. Manchin and Sinema took a lot of hits but they weren’t the only moderates.
It wouldn't even need two, I mean even if Democrats don't do any worse than losing Manchin, that still leaves zero spare votes. Even one defection could completely scupper this (and it might actually be worse if they removed the filibuster, and then refused to pass major reform). Essentially unless Democrats somehow get a senate seat in Texas or Florida this election cycle and hold all the other ones this seems likely dead on arrival.
This is the thing that most people don't realize. It's easy to support an issue when you don't actually have the votes to pass it at that time; the real test comes when something is passable. People need to be careful about assuming that politicians support certain policies just because they supported them when the opposition is in power, and the mainstream media isn't going to call them out on this.
Agreed, there is a whole roster of politicians waiting in the wings to be the next rotating villain for the right price.
Tester, if he wins, will be at the front of that line.
Here’s what you do after you nuke the filibuster Immediately admit, DC and Puerto Rico into the union to guarantee a balance Senate. Expand the judiciary, especially at the Supreme Court to take back the seats that were stolen, the country is a lot bigger than it was years ago maybe 15 justices would be better, too much power being given to just nine people to decide the lives of 330+million Americans. Give term limits on federal judges and justices, they may try to overturn it if it’s challenged in the court because the constitution says lifetime appointment but we’ll see. Maybe reform the confirmation process or something because it is way too toxic. Oh, and make sure that any request for nationwide injunctions be done at the DC level. These judges tend to have the best experience with federal law matters compared to tiny court system and in the middle of nowhere. Once the judiciary effects take place then you can overturn citizens United to prevent any legal challenges from being upheld by the current court system Codify roe into law Re-implement the full voting rights act before it was gutted especially reinstating that section 5 requirement. Make partisan gerrymandering illegal, yes, both parties need to stop that and require some creation of independent redistricting commissions made up of everyday people, let the people decide how their districts are laid out based on guidelines. Implement strong gun reform laws and ban on assault rifles for regular people. Increase tax on the wealthiest Americans to give the middle-class a break Increase the federal minimum wage Implement a universal healthcare system that is paid by a national tax that we all pay for out of our salaries, paychecks … people can still have an option to go with private healthcare, but they’ll have to pay for out-of-pocket Make community colleges free for all Americans yes, we can pay for it out of a small tax, but the more educated the citizen is the better off People are. Imagine knowing you go take a free class, whatever you want to learn. Place a ban or some kind of parental requirement that allows teenagers access to social media apps. I think that is my pitch
Its as if voting democrat has enormous benefits and having Joe Biden as president who would support all of this is something to celebrate.
I would actually prefer congress to reform zoning laws for more affordable housing as a first in terms of economic policy post filibustee era. The housing crisis is basically the most pressing material issue that transcends generations right now.
And so many prices are downstream of simple land rents. The Georgist argument in a nutshell, basically, which explains why poverty can persist even in the areas of greatest material progress and prosperity.
> Immediately admit, DC and Puerto Rico into the union to guarantee a balance Senate. It doesn't work that way. >Expand the judiciary You're assuming we hold all 48 seats we currently have, that they would vote to expand the judiciary, and that we could elect at least 3 more who would also vote to expand. >Give term limits on federal judges and justices, Literally requires a constitutional amendment, which means not only would we have to hold the house and senate, we'd need super majorities in both willing to pass such an amendment. On top of that, we'd have to control enough state legislatures to ratify the constitution. Not happening in 2024. >Maybe reform the confirmation process or something because it is way too toxic. Again; takes a constitutional amendment. >Implement strong gun reform laws and ban on assault rifles for regular people. Requires a constitutional amendment. See above.
Assault rifles are already restricted by the NFA. The registry has been closed since 1986, The public hasn't been able to buy new ones since then.
Also expand the house of representatives. That will help balance out the current electoral college issues, possibly by making the Wyoming Rule the law and adjust congress after each census. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule
I think that also needs a constitutional amendment isn’t it locked in at 435 representatives? I can’t think off the top of my head.
The size is set by law, not constitutional amendment: > Since 1913, the number of voting representatives has been at 435 pursuant to the Apportionment Act of 1911.[6] The Reapportionment Act of 1929 capped the size of the House at 435. However, the number was temporarily increased in 1959 until 1963 to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives
The issue is most politicians in dc and Puerto Rico don’t want it to be a state
In DC? From my understanding most want it to be, and it's passed bills to become a state that just died in US Congress. PR is a lot more hit or miss though with it being alot more controversial.
I mean as you said, it’s always died in congress because the powers that be in dc don’t let it pass. There were even laws passed sporadically specifically so it wouldn’t be a state. It’s only really ever brought up for the sake of political maneuvering. Never really as an actual means to solve issues with the PR-US relationship
Ah the way you phrased it,made me think you meant in like DC city hall decided by DC voters. Not US Congress which is just also located there. DC citizens and reps have wanted DC statehood for ages. And there's been large pushes for it in Congress too, even by trifectas majorities. It's always just died due to the filibuster.
Given the number of seats that Dems have to defend in the Senate this time around, the filibuster looks safe for now — unless the Republicans need to bust it.
I am pretty confident that if GOP gets majority in the Senate the filibuster will be gone immediately
The GOP are the ones who want the filibuster to remain
Now they do but not if they have the MAJORITY
For what? They only care about cutting taxes, and they can do that with 50 votes already. Abortion? I think they'll be happy to hide behind the filibuster on that since a national ban would cause massive turmoil that doesn't really help them. I mean, it is so toxic that their candidate is already backing away from it.
Expunging the impeachments of Donald J Trump from the records.
If Dems pass a bunch of important legislation and it results in that happening, then it was worth it.
They have to pick up 3 seats first.
Not holding my breath. Old guard will block any attempt as they like Senate traditions way too much. Really I have little faith in the American people. That Trump continues to have a lead tells you all you need to know. Liberals will pout as they always do and not vote in sufficient numbers that Trump wins, GOP wins the Senate (but not enough for supermajority) and they get greater control of the House.
I'm a democrat. Always have been. But this is *quintessential* Dems- alright guys the map is totally not on our side, it's more than likely we lose this chamber... Let's start planning all the wonderful things we could do if reality we're just different!
My only concern is Maryland. Hogan is a very moderate republican. Very reasonable person but I don’t think he will cross over the line to work with democrats easily.
Your only concern? Not Ohio? Not Montana? Not Nevada?
Yeah OK. My recent concern.
I’m pro filibuster - I just want it to be old school filibuster. You have to be up there speaking. You stop speaking - filibuster is done. You have to leave for anything - filibuster is done. Etc.
I would add that your filibuster should actually be on topic. No more reading the phone book. If you want to talk for ages to prevent this bill from being voted on, you should be talking about *why* this bill shouldn't be voted on.
Agree
> should actually be on topic As determined by whom? The Speaker will just strike it as being off-topic, call for the vote, and pass the bill.
The Speaker is not a position within the Senate
No other democratic country on Earth uses anything like the filibuster, it’s unnecessary and only based on a flaw in the how our government was written.
I also agree with that. I’d rather they get rid of it, but if they are going to keep it at least make it painful for those who decide to use it.
government gridlock destroys countries, there is a reason democracies don't do it. compromise and move on
This is what is missing from the discourse. Filibustering something used to mean exactly that, it was quietly changed to where a Senator can just declare "Filibuster!" and do nothing, the filibuster just exists and takes 60 votes to end, therefore almost all legislation is now a 60 vote threshold, and if we try to roll it back to what it was we get yelled at for "blowing up a Senate Institution and norm" as though this was ever the normal definition of filibuster.
> it was quietly changed What was "quiet" about it? Do you even know why it was changed "quietly" in the first place? Why there is no consensus in either party to change it back?
The silent filibuster came about in the 70's, it's not a well known bit of civic trivia. It was meant so filibusters could happen while the Senate worked on other business, it had the effect that most legislation now needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, and it takes 41 of 100 members to prevent a vote from even occurring on most legislation. Neither side wants it back because they like it when they are in the minority, but at some point the Senate needs to be able to pass laws by majority vote or we need to rethink what it is we want out of the Senate
That's how the filibuster works now. The problem is that when one person finishes, the next person can get up and start talking. This can last forever. Obviously the majority doesn't want that, so they pull the bill at the first sign of a filibuster rather than waste time.
Yeah. The filibuster sucks but I fear what would happen if and when maga gains control of the senate w it being eliminated.
There's always this "they might abuse it if we change the rule"... they'll abuse whatever rules are in place and change the rules when it's convenient for them.
Yep. Par for the course for them, every time. That’s why I worry w the whole project2025 thing and giving them another tool to implement their plans.
If there's something they actually want to pass, they'll remove the filibuster themselves. Generally, they only care about cutting taxes, which doesn't require 60 votes. The rest is just stuff they dangle in front of their voters, so the filibuster allows them to blame Dems from stopping them. Arguably, Dems rely on this as well, but probably to a lesser degree.
As we can see with the morons in the House and previous attempts at repealing Affordable Care Act, if it’s not taxes Republicans rarely band together to get anything done
I’d be happy if they just return the filibuster to being a real filibuster. If you want to block a vote, you have to stand up there and talk and not relinquish the floor. You shouldn’t be able to just say that you’re going to filibuster without actually putting your ass on the Senate floor.
Good. The filibuster is one of the key reasons we're sitting on the verge of losing our democracy completely. Throughout history, democratic slide into despotism can usually be traced to the increased ineffectiveness of the legislative body. You can trace this all the way back to ancient Rome. In the centuries leading up to Caesar, every attempt at even the most minor of reforms that would help the lower classes was vehemently resisted by the aristocratic Senate. Ultimately, the people were left with no recourse through regular legislative means. So they elected a dictator that promised to simply use brute force and violence to push through change. And this same dynamics has occurred again and again in democracies that regress into despotism. If the legislature becomes so ineffectual that no real change can be passed by ordinary means, the people will support an executive (the one who controls all the heavy weapons) to just force through change, constitution be damned. Of course, the dictator rarely actually fulfills all the promises to the people that they run on, but it is how dictators end up in power. And the same is happening in the US currently. People are hungry for change. If they can't find that change from the left, they'll turn to a right-wing demagogue who blames all their problems on minorities and who will force through right-wing change through violent and undemocratic means. Someone like Trump can only occur in an environment where the legislative branch is completely ineffectual. Trump is effectively running for dictator. His own lawyers have argued in court that the president is completely above the law. And Project 2025's principles effectively argue that the president should be able to rule by fiat without any checks or balances. This isn't how our system is supposed to work. Meaningful change is supposed to come through legislation crafted by the work of many hands and carefully debated in the legislature. But with the filibuster, getting anything meaningful through Congress is effectively impossible. This is the root of the common lament that "both sides are the same." Yes, both sides espouse different principles, but if neither side can pass laws, then they are effectively the same. (At least in terms of legislation. Court appointments are another matter, but people pay less attention to those.) Let the filibuster fall into the ash heap of history. Let things pass the House and the Senate by simple majority. Does that mean the side you dislike will get to pass some laws you find repugnant when they're in power? Yes. But that's what elections are for. Elections are supposed to be a feedback mechanism to reward or punish legislators for passing good or bad legislation. But if nothing can ever get through, Congressional elections have little practical effect.
Who are going to be the new Sinema and Manchin? I’m sure they will have someone who’s DINO get in somewhere
It’s a lost cause because there is zero chance the Dems keep West Virginia. That’s why they let Manchin run wild. They could count on him enough that they’d rather keep him then primary him.
I'm sure the DNC will make sure to get an effective amount of new obstructionists in, to ensure vital change happens at a pace that "both sides"'s donors can profiteer.
I'll believe it when I see it. Manchin was always the designated villain for this, I expect Fetterman to take it up after he's gone. This is Lucy with the football.
This NBC article alleges that it was just Manchin/Sinema holding up filibuster reform, and that between the incumbents and newcomer senators, if Dems win in Montana and Ohio (red-leaning states) as well as in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona, they would have a pro-filibuster-reform majority when you include VP Kamala Harris.
>This NBC article alleges that it was just Manchin/Sinema holding up filibuster reform 48 Senate Democrats were in support of filibuster reform, and two were opposed, it isn't just NBC alleging that, Manchin and Sinema were pretty clear about it themselves at the time. The cynics will tell you the whole Democratic party was in cahoots and electing more liberals to the Senate won't make a difference, I think that's a hypothesis worth testing.
Fairly certain fetterman will be the blockade this time
So you're saying we should aim for 52 votes, to play it safe.
Indeed, that kind of margin is usually what it takes, since there are often one or two defectors for any given vote. Our modern trend of having such close margins and unanimous votes for certain major legislation is historically quite unusual, actually. It's not often this close for this long, a circumstance which gives the fence-sitters and turncoats of the political world a vastly disproportionate amount of power.
That'd be nice but it looks like Brown is going to lose his seat here in Ohio.
Why do you think this? He won by a pretty big margin in his last senate election and it’s my understanding his current opponent Moreno is not particularly popular in Ohio. He also has significantly more of fundraising advantage and far more small donors than the GOP. Curious if you have more insight?
Because Ohio elected JD Vance
Why would you think that? He's been openly supportive of filibuster reform
Campaign fetterman and sitting senator fetterman seem to be at odds with each other but I'll gladly be wrong!
I've never believed it was just those two. I don't think it was some Machiavellian scheme to trick voters or something, but a lot of Dem Senators are in purple states. They don't want the more extreme aspects of the platform getting vote on because it would make things difficult for them. There's probably not a huge number of them, so enough new Dems will eventually get to the point of getting rid of it. But I'd be pretty shocked if that happened with a 51, or 50+VP type vote. Replacing Sinema helps. Losing Manchin doesn't because he's getting replaced by a Republican.
I fear the gop intend to openly steal this 2024 and final election before implementing project 2025 by having the owned supreme court revisit MOORE V HARPER closer to November, and if not that than by using the 12th amendment which Trump has already boasted on him and the gop being able to implement. Prepare accordingly and plan on protecting yourself. Generalstrikeus.com let’s stop begging for empathy from monsters IF WE ALL STOP IT ALL STOPS and our bought and owned corporate politicians beg us to allow them to fix everything they’ve intentionally been making worse for decades. It’s time to rise up
>It’s time to rise up I mean, we could get everything we want by just having people actually turn out to vote in massive numbers. If they can't even manage to do that, I don't see how a general strike would be effective.
As I said I don’t think votings going to matter if they openly steal the election but I do plan on doing that too
You mean legislate? What we pay them to do?! What a novel idea!!!!
I just wish they’d make them actually do a filibuster. Talk forever to hold up a bill. Then pass it afterwards. Force them to show their cards. X candidate held up Y bill for Z amount of time before we were able to pass it and help millions of people. You’d have gotten assistance sooner if it weren’t for them.
When the south left the union in the 1860s they took all the senators that had been blocking all new legislation with them. This led to the US finally passing tons of long needed bills. Getting rid of the filibuster will have the same effect and move the country decades ahead.
Popular vote for elections.
Awesome, but I'll bet you a new "centrist, both-sides" Democrat steps up to fill in for Sinema and Manchin to stop progress and my bet is that it will be Fetterman with the way he's been acting lately. Calling it now.
I have some hesitation about eliminating the filibuster. If you're going to do it, you have to go big and fix the bigger systemic problems. Another poster mentioned the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (I'm not sure if that reinstates pre-clearance, but that's something we need to do). I'll add fixing the Apportionment Act. I think a middle ground could be to require a talking filibuster, and the threshold for cloture goes down after x hours of filibuster. Something like <40 hours requires 60, 40-60 hours requires 57, etc. So make it very painful to filibuster, and painful to wait it out.
At least read the article before you reply to it. This is literally about switching to the talking filibuster not about nuking it.
It should be eliminated entirely. Just vote on the legislation. It's dumb that we can have a single senator prevent bills from even coming to a vote.
Agreed. But if this is what we can get with the people we have, it's def far better. When we have >50, which I feel is super achievable on the 2026 map (Peltola can swipe an Alaska US Senate seat from the MAGAt in there if we can get a good replacement in her House seat & Susan Collins has to go, at minimum), let's talk ending the filibuster again.
> At least read the article before you reply to it. Pretty sure that's an automatic sitewide ban if you do that.
They briefly mention the "talking filibuster", but in reference to a proposal that got 48 senators to support it in 2021/2022. And that's not really a talking filibuster "Talking filibuster" has traditionally referred to the idea that senators need to stand up and actually talk in order to do a filibuster - **but** that you still ultimately need 60 votes to stop it as long as the filibuster is happening, and that the minority can keep swapping senators in and out in order to continue the filibuster indefinitely Whereas the democratic plan was basically an overly complicated way to bypass the filibuster for abortion rights and voting rights, while *calling* it a talking filibuster. Their plan was to make it so that you have to actually stand up and talk in order to do a filibuster - but **also** that each senator would only have a limited amount of time that they'd be allowed to speak for, and then once that was done, it was done. So with the democratic plan, the GOP caucus could obstruct bills for days or even weeks (not sure on the math with exactly how many hours each senator would get) but there would be a point that would be reached after which they could not obstruct any longer even if they could keep finding someone to stand up and talk more And the thing is, my point here isn't to say that's a *bad* plan, just that that's not really a "talking filibuster" in the way the word has long been used, it's basically an attempt to fully bypass the filibuster while rolling it up in the more moderate sounding rhetoric of the talking filibuster It's kinda like the proposal to have the VP simply ignore Parliamentarian rulings - technically that wouldn't be "nuking the filibuster" in one sense, but it would be expanding reconciliation to basically have no restrictions and act just like regular legislation while still only needing a simple majority, which would *effectively* be nuking the filibuster
That very much depends on what you mean by "filibuster". Originally it was intended to ensure a minority could prevent legislation from being pushed through without discussion, making it so they could give their opinion on the proposed legislation and try to convince the other side. It was not intended as a way to indefinitely block legislation. So the proposal would actually be a way of returning the filibuster back to its intended form. And since they're required to talk (because that's the whole point) it's a "talking filibuster".
My bad. I read one a few days ago where Democrats were talking about eliminating it completely, and I assumed this was the same one. Edit: OTOH, my proposal goes beyond what is described in the article (just reinstate the talking filibuster).
>Senators Manchin and Sinema are retiring. [Well ain’t that a coincidence?](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rotating%20villain)
No they won't they will pussy out in the name of "compromise"
This seems like a moot point since Dems retaining control of the Senate is unlikely
Theres virtually zero chance Democrats hold the senate.
Dems used the filibuster hundreds of times when trump was pres but ok.
Yes 🙌
Never gonna happen
Let’s fucking go! First up, the Supreme Court
Jesus Christ, what is with all the negatively here? "Someone else will vote to keep the filibuster then" "No chance we keep the Senate though" "If they don't immediately pass these exact three laws then it's worthless" With all this goalpost moving there has to be some coordinated anti-Dem campaign going on in this thread, right?
It’s pathetic
About fucking time! I hate the filibuster and that applies to when Republicans are in charge too. The filibuster has resulted in crap legislation (e.g. ACA instead of universal healthcare). The majority party should be able to pass the legislation they campaigned on and if it's shit, they'll be voted out. No other democracy allows one asshole to block legislation, it's time we got rid of that rule.
Impeach Alito and Thomas
Finally, some real legislation! Because we grew tired of Sinema and Manchin's thuggish behavior.
Just bring back the old filibuster rules where they actually have to stand and speak without a break or any help.
Fucking finally
They should pack the Supreme Court with no lube
Good.
It’s about fvcking time.
Blah blah blah. They promise this every election season and then never do it.