The filibuster makes a big difference when the president, the speaker of the house, a majority of the House, and between 50-59 senators all support something.
If you don’t have all of those others lined up, the filibuster isn’t the only hurdle.
For example, Biden hasn’t been president during a Democratic-controlled House, so everything he’s accomplished legislatively has been with the support of either Kevin McCarthy or Mike Johnson, who have been the critical veto point while he has been president.
Plus with only 51 Senators in the Democratic caucus (and 50 in the last Congress), getting 50 votes through Manchin and Sinema has been a challenge sometimes, too.
The last time the filibuster has mattered for a Democratic president in actual legislation was the 111th Congress, when Democrats last held a trifecta. The Democrats did abolish the filibuster for presidential appointments, which don’t go through the House, during the 113th Congress, when they controlled the White House and the Senate.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the filibuster is gone the next time it matters, the next time there’s same party control of all 3. It’s just that it’s better if it’s Democrats in control.
I’m excited to see people screaming “Presidents don’t have the power to do that, idiot!” when some far left Trump loving Tankie brings up this promise in another six months.
Prove it.
Tbf, she says she supports ending the filibuster. Whether or not she can do it or convince enough senators to do so is another thing entirely.
Just make them actually stand there and talk instead of doing it by computer
Exactly. The old filibuster rule actually required some true effort. This, sending an email bullshit is not at all what the filibuster entails.
I’d rather they eliminate it.
They aren’t having actual discussions anyways. Just vote already.
Grueling filibusters are ableist; I don’t want physical endurance to be a factor in who wins votes.
Sanders did it for 8 hours once.
That’s true. We’ve heard it before though, and it’s been dropped a few times. To me it just sounds like a campaign promise.
The filibuster makes a big difference when the president, the speaker of the house, a majority of the House, and between 50-59 senators all support something.
If you don’t have all of those others lined up, the filibuster isn’t the only hurdle.
For example, Biden hasn’t been president during a Democratic-controlled House, so everything he’s accomplished legislatively has been with the support of either Kevin McCarthy or Mike Johnson, who have been the critical veto point while he has been president.
Plus with only 51 Senators in the Democratic caucus (and 50 in the last Congress), getting 50 votes through Manchin and Sinema has been a challenge sometimes, too.
The last time the filibuster has mattered for a Democratic president in actual legislation was the 111th Congress, when Democrats last held a trifecta. The Democrats did abolish the filibuster for presidential appointments, which don’t go through the House, during the 113th Congress, when they controlled the White House and the Senate.
I think it’s pretty obvious that the filibuster is gone the next time it matters, the next time there’s same party control of all 3. It’s just that it’s better if it’s Democrats in control.
Democrats are just as capable of whipping a vote as republicans when they feel like it.
I’m excited to see people screaming “Presidents don’t have the power to do that, idiot!” when some far left Trump loving Tankie brings up this promise in another six months.
I don’t understand what you mean. I’m saying prove it as in do what you’re promising.
She won’t. And when it comes time to talk about her failure, you’ll be castigated for bringing it up.
Honestly, I’ll be surprised if I even remember about it next year.