“They’re all committed to it now, because Chuck has made them take a public position. Every Democratic challenger, I’m told, running for the Senate is taking the same position,” McConnell said. “I think they fully intend to do it if they can.”

Thanks for advocating for a good reason to have democratic control of the senate

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The issue with the filibuster,now, is that it’s too easy. It needs to be hard like the old days.

    Ironically, because it’s so easy we actually don’t even see filibusters often anymore. It’s usually the threat of a filibuster that stops legislation in its tracks. If it was harder, where you stood for days, then it might not actually stop legislation. At least it would be brought to force the issue.

    You should have to earn it.

    I’m sure the geriatric core of our Congress will thrilled to have to stand for hours to prove their points.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The real problem with the filibuster, in my opinion, is it shields senators from taking a public position. The most extreme senator from Idaho can filibuster the “feed the children” act which prevents a senator from Georgia from having to vote no.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Need to put in requirements for these lazy bums. They are supposed to be civil servants acting on our behalfs. We should demand attendance, votes on all measures, and at least a brief summary as to why our congressman/senator voted the way they did. If it doesn’t line up with what we want. GTFO

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Previously they had to actually talk for so long that nobody could vote on the bill. Now they just send an email, like, “I fillibuster this,” and that is that.

          • Invertedouroboros@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            The filibuster has never really been a thought out and considered rule of the senate so much as a fluke of debate rules. It’s basically just a loop hole noone has wanted to close since the first senate. Noone’s made it easier so much as debate rules have streamlined and the filibuster along with them.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I respectfully disagree for the reason you stated at the end. Grueling filibusters are ableist - they’re unfair to representatives with disabilities and their constituents.

      Congress is not convincing each other of anything. They can make their point concisely for the C-SPAN viewers. Filibusters are a complete waste of time.

      Say goodbye to the next FDR if you demand standing.

      • aaa999@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        that’s the point you aren’t supposed to be able to do it no one can any olympian jacked mf will eventually pass out and then you can hold the vote, that is literally the point the filibuster is supposed to kill the person doing it

      • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You aren’t wrong but…

        Can you imagine the spectacle of an ancient senator literally taking a stand for something he/she believes in?

        That’d be pretty powerful.

      • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Interesting point but name 1 senator with a disability that prevents them from doing an old school filibuster. And they are American citizens subject to laws like the rest of us. If they need an accommodation they can apply for one through the ADA

        • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          I’m not familiar with their disabilities because the policy we have right now doesn’t force them to get ADA accommodation. I’m arguing that we should eliminate the filibuster entirely (and not introduce physical challenge filibusters) so physical fitness doesn’t become a problem.

          What’s “sidecar” in this context?

          • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Sidecar was an autocorrect. It’s fixed now.

            Physical fitness is already an issue. That’s why we have 90 year old senators out of touch with their constituents.

            The reason the filibuster is important is because it prevents 51% of the country from deciding for 100% of the people. In order to steamroll something through there must be a supermajority. The old school filibuster works because if 1 party truly wants to stop something they must fight for it. Not send an email and the bill gets immediately killed. If a senator can not physically stand for a few hours they don’t need to be there.

            Again I understand your point about being ableist however the key point when dealing with accommodations is that the person must be able to perform the job when given a REASONABLE accommodation. Fucking the entire country because 1 senator can’t walk makes no sense and imo is not reasonable.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I think it should require difficulty but allow for reasonable accommodation. Wheelchair using representatives shouldn’t need to stand but should need to speak and remain awake on the floor. Really just run it past the ADA tests