Should Republicans eliminate the filibuster?

It has changed from time to time. A few decades ago it took 2/3 vote to end a filibuster. Initially there was no way to end a filibuster.

 

What I mean is back when you actually had to stand there and talk for it.

 

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

 

Im very torn about the filibuster.

It helps Democrats prevent some very bad laws, but is also prevents them from pushing really good laws.

 

Do we really need grown ups standing at a podium reading a cook book to C-SPAN?

 

If we are going to require 60 votes to kill a filibuster, filibuster should have 40 Senate votes to sign on to it. Not simply one.

 

This is amazing. Chuck Schumer suddenly think bipartisanship is necessary in Senate. He even said he was just joking about ending the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, and jailing registered Republicans.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ont-do-to-us-what-we-were-going-to-do-to-you/

I almost feel bad for the state of New York. Their state is governed so poorly because of its loyalty to the Democrats, but they vote for it. So zero ****s given.

 

Do you think that Trump will select three more Supreme Court Justices?

 

He's going to replace Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, and the Senate will give its consent. I don't think he will add additional justices, and the conservative majority will be cemented at 6-3 for at least 25 years.

 

I'm not aware of anyone on the conservative side that wants to get rid of it. Do you have any examples?

 

That would be true if, let's say 52%, of the senate is one party and they pass 52% of the bills which are proposed by them and then pass 48% of bills put forth by minority parties.

The real problem I see today is the senate can't get anymore to 60 votes except for motions to honor vets or squirrels. Somehow districts need to force people to represent them and not a party. A few days ago a Republican said if the president tells him to jump 3 feet and scratch his head he's doing it. That to me is horrifying. Why should he be paid a dime if that is how he'll "work"? All senate votes should be 60 or more to pass, force them to either tone it down or make compromise on other issues. You know, representative democracy with all represented.

 

That would be amazing. I guess Sotomayor is going to take the RBG challenge?

 

I think they should restore it to the way it was originally intended, the 'talking' filibuster, where, if you wanted to filibuster, someone had to occupy the floor long enough to run out the clock (unless cloture was invoked). This way, they would only go through that kind of trouble on major legislation if it was strongly opposed enough. Today, opposition uses it on EVERYTHING, and nothing gets done. This is wrong.

 

The problem is political parties themselves. It isn't a representative democracy when the representatives don't vote freely and party whips exist.

 

In the Fed papers, The term 'mob' does not necessarily equal 'majority'. It only refers to large groups that are motivated by a special interest, as opposed to the reasoned and thoughtfully gained interest of the majority. This was the reason for the institution of the bicameral legislature.

Nowhere in the Federalist papers does the phrase 'tyranny of the majority' appear.

Republicans seem to referring to Fed 10 as 'tyranny of the majority' yet the phrase does not appear.

Madison expresses concern about the excesses of majority rule, but they weren't arguing against majority rule, they sought to temper the excesses of majority rule with the institution of a bicameral legislature and the electoral college. But, at no time, anywhere, did the framers and founders argue in favor of minority rule.

Nor does the term 'mob' inherently equal 'majority'. Mob refers special interest groups, aka 'factions' driven by a special interest.


Copilot says:

The 'representative republic' was achieved by the institution of the bicameral legislature.