McConnell vows 'scorched earth' if Senate ends filibuster

You brought her remark up.

 

We get it, you hate McConnell. McConnell didn't single handedly kill single payer LOL. A "conservative think tank" doesn't represent the GOP party in Congress, and just because something worked in a particular state doesn't mean it will work nationally. Obama picked what he thought he might be able to get thru Congress, and it wasn't just the GOP he was hassling things out with. The ACA was controversial enough that it BARELY passed reconciliation in the middle of the night with ridiculous giveaways to certain DEMS (cornhusker kickback anyone?) in order for them to vote for it. The DEMS could barely pass the ACA within their own caucus, and you think that Obama could have gotten single payer? I'm sorry, but that's delusional.

McConnell has already signaled a willingness to not hold up Biden's department and cabinet nominees the way the Dems did to practically every Trump nominee. If he played your game, he'd be justified in holding up practically every single one like the Dems did to Trump. He's not doing that. McConnell is a pragmatist. He didn't LIKE Trump, but he didn't have to. He made the best of it and took advantage of the opportunity to push his priority, conservative judgeships. I think he was actually pleased Biden won, but he was thinking the GOP would keep the Senate. He's not going "to block everything now and into the future", IF Biden can hold off the far left and stay towards the center. It's these sweeping big moves to the left all at once that won't get any support from the GOP. Start with something like infrastructure, where there is a lot of need and can be a lot of agreement, and both sides need to stay away from hard lines on items they know are third rails for the other side. There's nothing wrong with moving incrementally......but instead, it's "let's nuke the filibuster", and you're surprised the GOP doesn't take that well? Bottom line, McConnell is a Senate master and knows every arcane rule there is and how to play them. If he says he can bring the Senate to a halt in retaliation for getting rid of the filibuster, I believe him, and wouldn't blame him a bit.

 

I'm curious. Just how can he bring the Senate to a standstill, with the filibuster gone?

 

Didnt Mitch the Bitch already do his scorched earth policy?....What is this threat scorched earth 2.0?

 

Go back and re-read the initial post. There are a lot of things he can do that will bring what are now considered normal routine operations by consent to a standstill or crawl, for starters. If he says he can, I believe him, based on his track record.

 

End the filibuster, add a bunch of blue states, create an independent redistricting board with distracting requirements that counter the effects of Gerrymandering and pass a bunch of left leaning bills (like min wage) that have broad public support in time for a Midterm boost. Republicans would never win another election.

 

Pretty much. McConnell is saying 'you havn't given me enough of what I want yet.' Rest assured, once McConnell gets his back scratched enough, he will hand over anything and everything.

 

I don't recall any socialist country arriving their incrementally, always by revolution and/or massive and bold steps ( noting that Nazi Germany was Fascist, not Socialist, despite the moniker ).

The netherlands are 'socialistic' but not 'socialist' and the distinction is night and day, that they are capitalist countries, they have installed 'steps' which you are hollering as 'moving towards socialism' which you are implying if they (inclusive of America ) will, one day, actually become full on socialist countries (with these 'steps' as you put it, which is false ).

But, in my view, they (the netherland countries ) are good examples of countries that have a good balance of the opposing forces of socialism for needs, capitalism for wants, and achieving the equilibrium of opposing forces, which is the most inert place, the analog of which would be like placing a pendulum at the center, (not talking about political centrism, only the equilibrium of forces) which would be the farthest point away from, and most secure from either extreme on the right or left.

 

The ones referenced seem to be just more delaying tactics. If deployed, and Mitch effectively shuts down the Senate (thus shutting down ALL legislation), he and a number of his Senatorial Republican colleagues will be gone in the next election. He either works out compromises or we'll simply become a single party system, which will cause all sorts of problems for "conservative voters," perhaps even much more than for "liberal voters." He's cutting off his nose top spite his face.

 

McConnell might ease up on nominees, but not dem bills. He's pleased that Biden won only in the sense that Trump lost.

Oh, he will block every bill dems propose, with a filibuster.

He has already brought the senate to a halt in the past, nothing new here.

Dems want to pass HR1, and repubs are going to block it.

There was absolutely NO health care bill that dems would be happy with that repubs would be happy with. ACA is as good as it will ever get.

 

Well, that's just it, isn't it? Working out compromises. Not each side continuing to go scorched earth on the other side. Eliminating the filibuster would be scorched earth from the Democrats and would be responded to in kind. It would be a signal that "we don't need or WANT your side to have any input or possible effect whatsoever". It would be different if was something like 65/35 or even 60/40 but the Senate has been pretty evenly divided the last few terms and to ignore that is to disenfranchise 1/2 of this country's voters. You'd think the even split would be a greater incentive to work together to accomplish something that that an overwhelming number of Senators would support. I think it's why Reid and McConnell never changed filibuster rules for legislation even though both were urged to do so. I don't think we will ever be a single party system, no matter what you call them. The pendulum always swings back. BTW, McConnell's term doesn't end til 2027.

 

What Dems (or GOP) want to pass and what is possible to pass in a bipartisan manner are two different things. Find a way that both sides "get" something, not everything. Being "happy with" however it ends up really is a stumbling block -- in a good negotiation, both sides are "satisfied" that they reached the best deal they could, not "happy". The recent way of doing things in the last 15-20 years of an all or nothing approach and forcing the other side to choke on it is really screwing the American people.

 

It should be illegal for federal government to send money to people or businesses or other governments. It is the source of most of its corruption.

 

I would say, go back to the original rule. The senator has to stand up and talk for as long he can. Not just 'say' there is a filibuster, he/they have to 'do' it.

 

Unless he resigns. Extend the period allowed for debate, after which cloture could be obtained by a simple majority. A closing period of debate could be established after cloture is obtained, after which a second cloture vote could be taken, to allow for the final floor vote. The Constitution specifies ANY super-majority vote. Logically, all other votes should be by a simple majority. I have no problem with a reasonable delay, but not an absolute blockage, which IMO is a perversion of a majority rule system.

 

I don't think he'll run again, but I doubt he would resign for any reason other than health and so far he's hanging in there. Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. I would beg to differ that while the House is more of the "majority rule" system, the Senate generally isn't and isn't supposed to be. That's why the rules are so different to begin with, and IMO our Founding Fathers were so wise. They feared tyranny of the majority over the minority. It's very frustrating in times of such evenly divided polarization and people feel that "nothing gets done", but that's pretty much how it's designed. Get more than a majority on board, or nothing happens -- intended to foster debate and compromise. I would be very much against changing any more of the cloture or filibuster rules just because it's frustrating. Keep at it til you hammer something out.

 

The fear of the majority was countered by a bi-cameral legislature, the the checks and balances of three main branched of federal government. But, the fundamental principle was a democratic ratio republic based on majority rule, with the minority rights expressed in the Bill of Rights.

 

Yeah we will. We'll likely win the 2022 election. You don't have the votes to end the filibuster.

“WHEN YOU ACT OUT OF FEAR, YOU MAKE SERIOUS TACTICAL ERRORS:” The Filibuster Fight Is About Dems’ Fear Of Losing Control.

They are genuinely afraid that their majority won’t exist for very long.

Short Timer.​

The Republicans had a decent 2020 election.

If the Republicans were trying to end the filibuster that the Democrats would be melting down.

 

As a rule this has always been the case. However, Democrats are trying hard to institutionalize their permanent control through HR1 which would make "free and fair" elections moot.

Don't forget the quintessential filibuster was carried out by Democrats to thwart Democrat LBJ's civil rights bill in the 60s.

 

I guess that means you want them to get rid of the filibuster, because if it stays, one person will (continue to) be able to hold up a vote, indefinitely. The alternative, & what seems likely to ultimately happen, is what Biden described, what Manchin has said he is open to considering, & the only option Dems have the votes for: returning the speaking requirement to the filibuster.

This is probably also the best move, since then Dems can't be blamed for eliminating it, & not even McConnell will be able fabricate a pretext for nuking it, as a tit for tat w/ Democrats, when Republicans are in the majority. That last part is only speculative, however, because if Republican stalling is limited to the time they can hold the floor, & Democrats are able to move on a host of ideas which have overwhelming voter support, Repubs should NOT be the Majority Party, any time soon-- unless the federal government, under Democratic control (except, of course, for the judiciary), cannot stop all the current measures being enacted by Republican legislatures, intended to cut down on minority-voter participation.

 

That is an incorrect assertion. The Republican opposition is NOT reflective of the national electorate, 70% or more if which is on-board for immigration reform, in favor of Biden's infrastructure renewal project (as they formerly had been in favor of the idea when it had only been at the undetailed, promise stage, with Pres. Trump, who never got it done), and wants common sense gun reform, to name just a few.

A)"Just because we can," was exactly the rationale behind the jamming through of the pre-election vote on, now Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, and in so many more instances, that it might as well be McConnell's mantra.

B) If you've listed your house for sale for $300k, & someone offers you $100k, that is not considered a serious offer. As it turned out, Biden did make concessions, & got no Republican votes for them. Where have we seen that before? (The two most obvious answers, if you didn't know, is with 1) Obama's stimulus package, which he shrunk in deference to Republican concerns, to get zero votes from Republicans in the House, & only 3 in the Senate but got plenty of Republican criticism when his stimulus then turned out to be too small to push the economy to a quick recovery; and 2) the ACA (ObamaCare), which was completely reworked for Republicans, after having even been based on a market model-- Mitt Romney's, from when he was the Gov. of Massachusetts-- from the start, out of consideration of the Republican perspective. After all Obama's bending for Repubs, he got a goose-egg of their support for the result.)

No one who's from this planet expects Congressional Republicans to say, "OK fine, do whatever you want," so your cautionary remark was completely unnecessary. If the past is precedent, even when Dems try to remodel every part of their plan down to the kitchen sink, Republicans will likely, "be united and use every tool they have to stop it."

 

Sounds like you should try to find more reliable sources to listen to.

 

Everything Democrats will argue in support of removing the filibuster is just another excuse to abuse their power for immediate gratification. Just remember morons. We were able to put Trump in Office and then took the Supreme Court the last time you played this game. We warned you when you decided to pull this stunt last time. We said, "Yeah but what if the Republicans take power?" Like that could ever happen.

Do you really want to F-around with this petty BS?

 

Your concern for the well-being of the Democratic Party goes well beyond gallantry, on your part. But fear not, they have certainly considered your argument, which is basically that of HISTORY. Those Democrats subscribing to the counter-argument, propose that the opposition's unlimited, unprecedented obstruction of everything the Dems want to accomplish, means that the status quo will lead to almost no other Democratic accomplishments, besides their stimulus bill, for their 2 years in control of both chambers of Congress, & the Presidency: hardly much of an endorsement to convince voters to buck history (which has not been w/o exceptions). They argue-- & it seems a compelling rationale, to my mind-- that their best chance of avoiding a, "swing back," in this midterm, is to deliver a record of achievement, which Congressional Republicans have no intention of cooperating in allowing them to manifest (also based on an appraisal of, recent, history).

But it is clear that the move, not only preferred by Biden, but the only one that Dems could muster the votes for, is NOT an elimination of the filibuster, which would come back to haunt Dems, when they are in the minority. The smart money is on a RETURNING of the filibuster to its historical norm, which always required those, "filibustering," to be on the floor, speaking. Dems understand that this will also apply, should they be in the minority.

They are making the case that 1) it is worth the price, for the difference it will make in their ability to address so many, pressing issues and 2) many feel that it was going too far, to allow any single member of the Senate, to block any measure from ever coming to a vote, with merely a phone call, and with no need of their standing to plead their case.

 

This was so such reasonable post, I don't even want nitpick. Okay, okay. Maybe Democrats should give it another couple months before they step in s### again. I think we've got our issue for the next election.