• TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.