Filibuster

Abolishing the Filibuster Is About Power, Not Anti-Racism

Even Joe Biden and Barack Obama were willing to acknowledge this basic fact just a few years ago.

|

As the Senate majority prepared to abolish the filibuster in order to advance its political agenda, a long-tenured member of the chamber issued a stern warning.

"We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power-grab by the majority party," then-Sen. Joe Biden (D–Del.) said during a speech delivered on May 23, 2005, from the Senate floor.

Calling it "the single most significant" vote he would cast in more than three decades as a member of the Senate, Biden admonished Republicans for trying to blow up the filibuster to get judicial nominees confirmed with a simple majority. "Folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing individual rights and they also, as a consequence, would undermine the protections of the minority point of view in the heat of majority excess," he said.

The times, they sure have changed.

During a Thursday press conference, now-President Joe Biden indicated publicly what he has reportedly been saying behind closed doors for a while: that the Senate's filibuster rules should be changed—perhaps even abolished, allowing legislation to pass with a simple majority, though he continues to hedge on that point.

"It's being abused in a gigantic way," Biden said of the filibuster, before suggesting that the Senate ought to return to the pre-1971 rules that required senators to actually stand on the floor and speak if they wanted to prevent a vote on a bill.

But, moments later, Biden suggested that he'd be willing to go further if the Senate's Republican minority blocks the passage of legislation—including a possible $3 trillion infrastructure bill, a gun control bill, and other progressive agenda items. "If there's complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster, then we'll have to go beyond what I'm talking about," he said.

Far from being a procedural mechanism meant to protect individual rights and guard against the tyranny of the majority, Biden says he now agrees with former President Barack Obama that the Senate's filibuster rules are "a relic of the Jim Crow era"—a line that has become the go-to explanation for progressives who would like to see the 60-vote requirement swept aside. (Obama, by the way, also defended the filibuster during the 2005 debate over the so-called nuclear option.)

But the history of the filibuster predates the Jim Crow era by several decades. In fact, the filibuster was accidentally invented by none other than America's first political villain: Aaron Burr. As vice president in 1805, Burr suggested that the Senate abolish a rule that allowed a simple majority to cut off debate on a bill. That same rule—technically a "motion to previous question"—still exists in the House today. Without that rule, however, the Senate could not pass any bill until every senator agreed to move forward.

That's an untenable arrangement for obvious reasons. The Senate used a variety of different mechanisms to stop debate and allow a vote over the years, but the current system of invoking "cloture"—the thing that requires 60 votes today, even though the number was originally higher—dates back to 1917.

The idea that the filibuster is a holdover from the Jim Crow era—an idea that is suddenly popping up all over left-wing politics and media—stems from the fact that filibusters were relatively rare until the past few decades. "It was used rarely and almost always for the purpose of blocking civil-rights bills," explains New York magazine's Jonathan Chait. "The filibuster exception to the general practice of majority rule was a product of an implicit understanding that the white North would grant the white South a veto on matters of white supremacy."

There is no question that the filibuster has been wielded for racist purposes. Sen. Strom Thurmond (D–S.C.) spoke on the Senate floor for more than 24 hours—still the longest filibuster on record—in a failed attempt to block a final vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, for example. The bill passed anyway.

But the filibuster is better understood as the product of the Senate's arcane procedural rules. As such, it is not inherently racist (and, by extension, abolishing it won't make the Senate as an institution anti-racist). If it was used by racists to advance racist goals, the racists are to blame. Presidents have used the annual State of the Union address to advance all manner of terrible policy, but we rightfully blame them (and the Congress that eventually votes to enact such policies) and not the speech itself.

The debate over the filibuster, like all of the tedious debates over procedural mechanisms in legislative chambers, is really about power. That power can manifest itself in the perpetuation of racist and discriminatory systems, of course, but not exclusively.

"Short-term, pragmatic considerations almost always shape contests over reform of Senate rules," Sarah Binder, a historian and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration last year. She was referring to the history of the filibuster and its evolution over the decades, but the same lesson applies to what's happening right now.

Today, the filibuster is also something of a scapegoat. As James Wallner, a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, wrote for Reason in January, there are plenty of other ways for the minority to use the Senate's rules to hold up legislation. Abolishing the filibuster will merely change the dynamics of this debate, but it won't end it.

The better question to be asked is whether allowing the Senate to pass bills with a simple majority would improve government. Considering that Democrats are trying to shove it out of the way to speed through questionably constitutional gun control bills and even more spending, it's difficult for anyone who believes in limited government to cheer the filibuster's potential demise. But this is a debate that requires clarity, not misplaced accusations of racism.

For what it's worth, Biden and the Democratic minority won the debate over the filibuster in 2005. A bipartisan group of senators—the Gang of 14 led by then-Sens. John McCain (R–Ariz.) and Ben Nelson (D–Neb.)—reached a deal in which the Republican members agreed not to deploy the nuclear option while Democratic members agreed not to block confirmation votes for future judicial nominees.

It was an agreement that held up until 2013, when Democrats nuked the judicial filibuster to push through some of Obama's picks. When Republicans retook control of the Senate in 2014, they happily used the new rules to push through dozens of conservative appointees to the federal bench—something that Democrats and progressives now routinely complain about.

There's a lesson here for Democrats in 2021. Nuking the legislative filibuster—especially when you have a majority so slim that a single election could flip control of the Senate back to the GOP—seems like a decision Democrats will regret sooner rather than later.

It's a lesson Biden should know well.

"Whenever you're in the majority, it's frustrating to see the other side block a bill or a nominee you support. I've walked in your shoes. And I get it," Biden said in that same 2005 speech. "There's one thing I've learned in my years here. Once you change the rules and surrender the Senate's institutional power, you never get it back."

NEXT: ICE’s Fake College Defrauded Students, Then Deported Them. The Biden Admin Is Defending the Scheme.

Filibuster Senate Congress Joe Biden Biden Administration Jim Crow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

231 responses to “Abolishing the Filibuster Is About Power, Not Anti-Racism

  1. Own is Boehm. Own it.

    1. Eric – you really think Biden is even aware of what he’s reading? Or that he wrote it? You supported a candidate with dementia. Own it.

      1. Democrats used the filibuster 260 times last year.

        1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. Biden is the POTUS following an 8-year tenure as a VPOTUS – what are you? Of greater achievement, ERIC?

        1. Proving there are plenty of below average people in intelligence.

          1. Close to half of them.

        2. Mopping the floor at a peep show is a greater accomplishment than anything Biden has achieved.

      3. The quote from Biden is when he could consistently put together a coherent sentence and get through it without a teleprompter. And that wasn’t even 120 years ago.

    2. My last pay check was $8750 just ecom working 12 hours for every week. My neighbor have found VL the estimation of $15k for a long time and she works around 20 hours for seven days. I can not trust how direct it was once I tried it information.. ….. Visit Here

    3. “Once you change the rules and surrender the Senate’s institutional power, you never get it back.” Seen from France, IMHO, It seem that you rightfully see senate as a safe guard against potential “toddlers” in the WH (like the one you had recently). You are right. But the time will come sooner or later when the senate itself will be also invaded by “toddlers”, if you do not adress the problem of toddlers. There could be some new “sanity” rules, or a new amendment to the constitution, so that a “toddler” could not as easily as before access to power, wether in WH, Senate, or Congress.That is a huge and hard thinking, I admit, but it has to be done.

      1. “IMHO” needs a fat capital ‘H’ with a semi-informed, european smarty like this wannabe above me. Also, learn English, buster.

        Wussy Macron sucks EU toddler dick any day of the week and loves his govt almighty buyup of the private sector. Clean your own house first.

        “That is a huge and hard thinking, I admit, but it has to be done.”

        Yea, “A” huge and hard thinking has to be done. That’s why you should probably take a seat in the back row again. Nobody cares what you “admit”.

      2. Also why are you double posting this bullshit? Does it take you very long to edit your drivel into a readable state? Then I would understand a need to reuse.

  2. As an anti-racist woke leftist I believe we need to end the filibuster. It clearly is a plot by the kikes to control US policies. Also we need to end the filibuster because can’t expect the blacks and mexicans to know what’s good for them selves because they are incapable of showing up on time to jobs, and don’t care if they do a good job. If you disagree with me you are a racist mysogonist homophobe.

    1. I came here to say exactly that but you said it better. I would only add that brown people can’t figure out how to vote so we may need to limit their numbers in deliberative bodies.

    2. That must be snark…

      1. Nah

    3. Nice…I hope all who read this see the sarcasm and irony in your comment. I suspect some will not.

      It is an absolute truth that the left is so blatantly racist, so convinced of the inferiority of minorities, that they believe these poor, stupid people just can’t make it without the help of the superior whites.

  3. Yes it clearly shows that Democrats are lying shysters willing to do anything to stay in power. They are corrupt and we’ve known it for years. That is why we didn’t want them back in power.

    By the way just in case you need another example read Obama’s Senate floor speech in March 2006 on the deficit and budget caps, then his complete 180 turn when he became president. That lying asshole is a threat to us all as his entire goal is to overthrow the US government and Constitution.

    1. We know Obama is a lying asshole. Good thing he’s not in office anymore!

      1. Who’s handling Joe and telling him what to do if not Obama’s team?

        The US has installed puppets in foreign nations by interfering in their elections, so it’s no surprise they’d do it in the US as well.

  4. If voter suppression laws are enacted by the state legislature and they only remedy is HR1 then I will accept ending the filibuster. We can not go back to “Jim Crow”. All people in this country deserve the right to elected representation.

    1. ahahah your people are tyrants and you have to eat it lololo

      1. When I think of all the shit they have to rationalize, it’s amazing.
        We’ve already seen them argue that trespassing on public property justifies shooting unarmed protesters. They’re making Trump supporters look like libertarians by comparison.

        1. its not amazing Ken, they have no worries of being called out on it by 95% of the media that people actually passively see (which i’d imagine is most of the voting public). One must know of and actively seek out sites with opinions, news stories and general facts that oppose ‘the narrative’. Search engines and social media have been making even this action increasingly difficult. Its been this way [increasingly so] since before the trump election and has been on full display since then.
          They have no fear of looking like hypocrites because they dont care. Their voters will largely not be aware of it and their opponents will and their access to such info will be marginalized.

    2. Who do you actually think isn’t able to vote right now? After an election that allegedly shattered all previous voting attendance. You people are unreal. With a straight face, you can argue that there’s NO (zero, zip, zilch) evidence of voter fraud, and then look me dead in the eye and say that the number of people getting turned away from polling places is an epidemic. Your turn. Where the fuck is the evidence.

      1. He is a racist. In the roundup thread he said minorities were too stupid to go to the dmv to get an ID.

      2. I can see how claiming people are being turned away from the voting booth because of “systemic racism” and conservatives “oppressing the vote” while also claiming no voter fraud at all, might make you speechless. The devil’s in the details, but those details aren’t available for inspection, and the case is moot, especially since there was no standing to bring most of those lawsuits without those details.

    3. Repeating this assertion doesn’t make it any less stupid.

    4. Voter suppression. Talking point de jour. Nobody is buying it.

      1. Stack racism and white supremacy on top of voter supression, and that’s the kill shot.

    5. This is a sarcastic comment, right?

      1. No, he is that stupid.

    6. Hey retarded lefty fuck, Democrats used the filibuster 260 times last year.

      Fuck off with your need for vote fraud at a national level.

      1. Jesse, I noticed you have failed to recant your uncritical endorsement of the kraken story. Maybe you haven’t heard, but ol’ Ms. Powell called you and the rest of the cult dumb asses for believing her obviously unrealistic little story.

        Perhaps you are taking your time writing a fitting mea culpa? You did insult everyone who pointed out the lack of evidence.

    7. So, your favored alternative to “Jim Crow” is Tamany Hal-style “democracy”?

    8. Maybe you could find a stupider talking point to parrot, but it would be hard to do.

  5. We Koch / Reason libertarians explicitly want total Democratic control. If abolishing the filibuster will help Biden accomplish his billionaire-backed, Wall-Street-friendly, Reason.com-endorsed agenda, then that’s what should happen.

    #LibertariansForBiden

  6. The Democrats crossed the Rubicon by calling it a legacy of Jim Crow. You can’t walk that back. The progressives won’t let them.

    And it’s really important to understand the ramifications of a federal government that is 100% the same as the Democratic party. It isn’t just that they’ll bail out the states, give us Medicare for All, confiscate our guns, and implement the Green New Deal.

    When opposing the Democratic party is the same thing as being an enemy of the United States government, then opposing the Democratic party makes you a traitor–and supporting the Constitution makes you a traitor.

    You want to see some real divisions in this country? You want to see average Americans make January 6 look like a Boy Scout Jamboree? I shudder to think what the reaction will be.

    1. “Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon river on January 10, 49 BC[1] precipitated the Roman Civil War, which ultimately led to Caesar’s becoming dictator and the rise of the imperial era of Rome.”

      —-Crossing the Rubicon

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Rubicon

      Yeah, that’s what they’re doing.

      1. Caesar won, and they intend to as well. Biden really is senile enough to believe that he’s the new FDR, only being held back by arcane proceduralism. But t’s not like anything is going to stop them; we’re all seeing just how cheap a date Manchin is.

        We might not get Antietam on account of everything being done, but I won’t be surprised if certain parts of the country turn into Belfast. If they were deliberately trying to effect a constitutional crisis they wouldn’t be acting any differently.

        1. I would not call getting stabbed to death by a former friend winning.

          1. Et tu Kamala?

          2. Well, the Roman republic never came back after Caesar won. They had a civil war over who would be the next emperor, but once they transitioned to an empire, the transition to decline was also already on the wall. They had some “good emperors”, but Gibbon ultimately blamed the decline on the loss of civic virtue among the Romans, and I’d be hard pressed to find a more likely source of our problems today.

            There are other parallels. It should be noted that the Roman senate lasted almost 500 years after the end of the republic. The Roman senate still met, debated, and considered themselves important, and we should expect American institutions to persist in a zombie state like that long after they’ve stopped functioning in any real way, too. As the centuries wear on and the Democrats persist in doing whatever is necessary to perpetuate their absolute power, we’ll look back at them killing the filibuster as the marking stone.

            But I don’t think the Romans realized the republic was over when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon at the time. Looking backwards across the centuries just tends to put things in perspective. The conspirators who stabbed Caesar to death on the senate floor may have thought they were reinstituting the Roman republic, but the problem wasn’t Julius Caesar. The problem was in the heads of the people of Rome. Like for progressives today, they wouldn’t accept anything but a benevolent dictator.

            1. Yea the Russian legislature also meets and they allegedly have a n independent court system.

              They have a constitution also that in many ways is analogous to ours.

              They don’t follow it

            2. They may not have realized the Republic was over, but they knew that Caesar bring his army into the republic was an act of insurrection.

        2. This is what is truly terrifying. If they succed in nuking the filibuster, they will have paved the way for one-party democratic dictatorship, and that will make Jan 6 look like backyard barbecue.

          As of right now, there are millions of people who don’t want to get involved. They’re pissed off, but they still have some level of belief in the system, they just want to live their lives, and they own millions of guns. What happens when they HAVE to get involved? Like you, I don’t think we’ll get a full blown civil war, and I think the democrats over estimate their chance of success against angry Americans with guns, but it will be violent and ugly and people will die.

          1. “This is what is truly terrifying. If they succed in nuking the filibuster, they will have paved the way for one-party democratic dictatorship”

            It’s a horrifying thought, and people don’t want to think about it, but it’s not future perfect, and that’s what I wish more people were getting. It’s not that the Democrats will have paved the way for one-party democratic dictatorship. Once the filibuster is gone, there will be no part of the government that isn’t under Democratic party control.

            At that point, if they don’t pack the Supreme Court, it’s because the Democratic party doesn’t want to pack the Supreme Court. There is no future event to give them total control of the government beyond getting rid of the filibuster. Once the filibuster is gone, their 100% takeover of the power of government will be complete.

            The question will no longer be IF IF IF the Democratic party can do whatever they want. The only question will be whether they really want to do it.

            1. I think you’re all being a bit hyperbolic. The filibuster is important, but it’s not that important. Anything the Democrats do now can be undone, if there is a political will in the opposing party.

              Honestly the Democrats are too fucking stupid to be a real threat to liberty. They are, however, incredibly annoying people.

              1. Democrats have already altered the electorate through control of the public education system. They now seek to alter the election rules across the nation, and can muster only a bare majority vote in the Senate (with the VP’s help). Loss of the filibuster is critical to shoving through every policy that has been bottled up for the last three decades (or more). There will be no unity, no shred of bipartisanship. The next 3.5 years will be a game-changing victory for the Democrats if they abolish the filibuster.

    2. When opposing the Democratic party is the same thing as being an enemy of the United States government, then opposing the Democratic party makes you a traitor–and supporting the Constitution makes you a traitor.

      You’re also a bit late to the party. This has been the Party line for the last several months.

      1. When they can’t get what they want because of the filibuster, however, it isn’t really true–the government and the Democratic party aren’t really the exact same thing.

        If they can do whatever they want because the filibuster is gone–up to and including pack the Supreme Court if they want–the government and the Democratic party really will be the same thing.

        The Democrats won’t just say that opposing the Democrats makes you an enemy of the United States. In a fundamental way, that will actually be true.

        1. Eliminating the filibuster allows them to pack the court. Packing the court eliminates any meaningful check on power. Eliminating the last meaningful block to one-party dictatorship allows them to roll over every American, with nothing left to stop them but Americans and their “assault weapons.”

          Time to start making yourself some ghost guns, because they’re coming for your legally purchased ones.

          1. So sad that I sold all of those years ago…

            1. It really is too bad.

        2. Have been wondering this for a while… if the supreme court gets packed… doesnt roberts still have full say in how the supreme court operates? cant he structure the court to run in various was… apportion the judges to cases the way he likes? could he just not have the extra judges seated for cases… just be sitting on the bench waiting for his call?

          1. i suppose that IF this were a possible scenario it would force the Dems to impeach Roberts and any others that stand in their way.

    3. I have said exactly that since they invoked Jim Crowe as a very reaching argument for ending it.

      The hardcore wokesters steering the party will not let them walk this back. It’s on the same thread as the anti-racist stuff.

      “Wait…you ARENT anti-racist?! WTH man?!”
      “Wait…do you REALIZE the filibuster means you support Jim Crowe legislation?! Why do you hate blacks?! Anyone who wont end it supports lynchings”

      While it sounds ridiculous and extreme, we are probably 5 min away from this rhetoric. Guarantee.

    4. Just because a tool or tactic was used by bad people for nefarious ends doesn’t mean it’s a bad tool or tactic.

      Secession is a basic human right, if you believe in the fundamental American principle of self-government. But some say secession is off the table because the pro-slavery CSA tried and failed to seced from the USA.

      And now they want to get the filibuster roadblock out of their path to total power because some racist used it 60 years ago.

  7. It’s hilarious to see an old fart like Biden still referring to shit as racist. The old man doesn’t know that the new term is transphobic. It doesn’t mean anything to call shit racist these days, everything’s racist and nobody gives a shit any more. You gotta call shit transphobic to get any attention.

    1. We attended a get together with some folks recently. It was more than half very vocal liberals, unfortunately.

      While getting violently ganged up on and shouted down on insisting we judge people by actual shit they personally did, and were responsible for, and treated them as individuals (this apparently is sacrilegious to them)…

      The most rabid of them insisted that white by nature = racist. End of story period. I had to ask…then…so fucking what? If white = racist, and some other characteristics (specifically cis, well-to-do, male) can also be racist and oppressive…then doesnt that take everything out of the punch?

      If racism is something evil vile people with bad intent have, and those of good nature strive to avoid…being a racist sounds really bad. But if racism is now just this vague original sin that people with too much self guilt have to flagellate themselves for…it really loses its sting. If no matter what I do I am just a racist….why the fuck should I care or do anything about it? What is my reward for kneeling before you, oh woke ones, and admitting my transgression?

      1. They eat you last

  8. “… it’s difficult for anyone who believes in limited government to cheer the filibuster’s potential demise.”

    Gridlock is good – add a filibuster to the House, rather than destroy it in the Senate.

    1. Reason cheered Trump’s demise and got exactly what any marginally engaged observer would have predicted. Kinda late for anyone who “believes in limited government” at Reason to have any credibility.

      1. This. Anyone who thinks they were unable to recognize what they were choosing should not be trusted with anything sharper than a crayon.

      2. Yes, Reason supported the second coming of Uncle Joe and now we have him. You break it, you buy it, time to rename the magazine name to maybe Mother Reason.

  9. Well duh! Charges of racism is the way the Left steamrolls everyone who stands against them. It is known. The Democrat Party is filled top to bottom with nothing but disingenuous race-baiters.

  10. Do people really think the GOP will never own the Senate again?

    1. They’ve got that part of the plan worked out: refuse to recognize Representatives and Senators from Republican-controlled states because their election policies amount to voter suppression.

      You can see based on Moderation4ever’s statement upthread that this will be a successful argument for convincing their base.

    2. That’s the whole point of HR1. They’re trying to Fortify Our Democracy so good and hard that voters will never be able to threaten the Proper Outcome ever again.

    3. Do people really think they will refrain from grabbing power when they can because Democrats served as role models?

      1. No, but we don’t expect democrats to act like the filibuster is racist when it’s their turn.

        We know this because they didn’t.

        1. I can’t help but notice that you seem very preoccupied with any suggestion that racism informs US history and institutions.

          I’m curious when you think racism stopped being major part of American politics. The ratification of the 13th amendment? Sometime after?

          1. It magically becomes non-racist when democrats do it. Duh.

            1. There are shades of gray in this world, yet we only get two choices here. Pick the less racist one. It’s also the less seditious, incompetent, theocratic, science-denying, warmongering, and fascist. But life is full of hard choices.

              1. Somehow the dems and their passionate supporters are the ones pushing for BIPOC only spaces, BIPOC schools, black’s only school graduations, stimulus for farmers of a certain skin tone, dividing and characterizing people specifically by their skin color, and allowing people to speak and be heard if they have the correct set of (skin color / gender / sexual orientation…insert whatever is winning the oppression Olympics du jour).

                Ya if I have to pick the less racist party, it seems somehow the R’s have dunked all over the D’s on that one kiddo. Nice try.

                1. Except that’s not a thing Democrats want to do or are legally allowed to do in most cases, while Republicans want to make VOTING a whites-only space, again.

                  1. They’re literally doing those things right now, dipshit.

                  2. LOL yea, Tony believes that his dearly beloveth minorities are so fucken incapable and incompetent that normal voting requirements will keep them from voting.

                    Hey Tony, why are you working so hard to make everyone believe that being black is a disability?

              2. Today I just saw the people who apparently hate fascism slam a private company for daring to speak back to a senator.

                The party that slammed Trump for being too isolationist.

                The party that says children can’t drive, but can choose their own gender with no mental health consequences whatsoever.

                I just choose me. I have very high standards.

                1. Children shouldn’t drive because they can’t see over the steering wheel or reach the pedals.

                  You are asserting a right to choose other people’s gender for them. Not just your own children, which is presumptuous enough, but other people’s, because anything but your own cultural biases makes you uncomfortable.

                  People who value their cultural biases the most are the most politically useless but dangerous. You spend your time obsessed with things that don’t matter, like gender norms, and care extra about having power over others as a result.

                  1. Actually, having daughters compete in public high school basketball against girls with penises and a good couple of feet in height actually does effect other people.

                    The great thing about externalities is, they’re everywhere.

                    Your comments would be so much more persuasive if they weren’t based on so many false assertions.

                  2. BTW, midgets can drive.

                    1. Imagine thinking the driving age was about height. And this guy thinks himself the intellectual superior to… well everyone he meets.

                  3. Can we get the last handler back? S/He didn’t step on obvious landmines.

              3. not so sure which side is the more incompetent, warmongering and fascist, in tactics and tone. Trump seemed pretty adept at avoiding wars, and didn’t use the greatest public health crisis since Polio as an excuse for a presidential power grab.

              4. Seditious- they are trying to legalize Democrats cheating in all future elections
                Incompetent- have you seen gas prices or the border lately?
                Theocratic- they are trying to make their cult of woke thr national religion- and succeeding.
                Science denying- I see schools are still.closed in Blue States.
                War mongering- are you fucking serious? Trump didn’t start a single war and tried to end the ones we are in. Biden immediately ordered troops into Syria to lying liar.
                Fascist- because who controls the mob and who’s getting people fired and who’s banning books?
                Oh and the first accusation was racist- but who’s looking at everything through the prism of race? Words have meaning jackass.

              5. You have more than two choices you just don’t do anything to make that happen.

          2. probably when the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. after that it’s just been used for demagoguery.

    4. Hr1 is intended to make sure of that.

    5. Yes, because the Democrats need them to be the heel. Sure some elections will go their way just so the Dems can remind the public of the sexist racists they are protecting them from.

  11. A little late to the party, aren’t we?

  12. “Sen. Strom Thurmond (D–S.C.) spoke on the Senate floor for more than 24 hours—still the longest filibuster on record—in a failed attempt to block a final vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, for example. The bill passed anyway.”

    To be fair, the other Southern Senators agreed *not* to filibuster – and in exchange they got the bill watered down. Thurmond was pretty much by himself in rejecting any compromise.

  13. When Republicans retook control of the Senate in 2014, they happily used the new rules to push through dozens of conservative appointees to the federal bench.

    Presumably they had to wait till 2017 to do that.

  14. By your own logic the filibuster is entirely racist, there can be no other explanation for it because it “dates back to 1917”. Practically every writer at reason has said it’s “no coincidence” that so many Confederate memorials were erected in the “Jim Crow era” and Confederate flag motifs added to state flags in the civil rights era. Temporal association is everything in the “history of racism”.

  15. (D) is about power, so is (R). (D) owns the racism part though.

    and you own all of it. mean tweets.

  16. And when hasn’t the Democratic party used Africans on their quest for power?

  17. ‘ “It’s being abused in a gigantic way,” Biden said of the filibuster, before suggesting that the Senate ought to return to the pre-1971 rules that required senators to actually stand on the floor and speak if they wanted to prevent a vote on a bill.’

    Which is a much better idea than abolishing it altogether. If you feel strongly enough to filibuster, you should at least have to work at it.

  18. So, if a tool or process is used in some cases to advance a racist cause, it is inherently racist? I’m thinking applying that reasoning more broadly isn’t going to work out well.

  19. And maintaining the filibuster is about the minority exerting power over the majority. It is at best a means to slow the political process and at worst anti democratic. The fact that it was oridinally designed to foster Jim Crow laws leaves no doubt to its original intent of racism. At this point a somewhat inaccurate/ somewhat accurate equation between racism and voter suppression makes leftists feel comfortable using the filibuster as a metaphor. That is not altogether fair. It is fair, however, to call it patently undemocratic. At least that needs to be acknowledged. Granting unequal power in favor of the minority may even be justifiable in some cases, but for god’s sake just own it and quit pretending. It just looks like a pickpocket arguing he thought his hand was in his own pocket. it avoids the conversation without convincing anyone. This kind of nonsensical BS from the current Republican/ Trumpist crop has to stop. It’s just a stupid waste of time. Just own it and be proud.

    1. That lamb is racist for not wanting the wolves to decide what to eat for dinner.

    2. The entire point of the Senate is to be less democratic than it could be. That’s the entire reason why there is a Senate with different composition, terms and rules from the house. And a lot of people will argue that the Senate is far too democratic since senators have been popularly elected.
      Democracy is a tool, not an end, but far too many people see it as a good in itself. Which it definitely isn’t.

    3. It’s a Republic if you can keep it. Pure democracy is just the tyranny of the 51%. And in case you didn’t notice Strom Thurman was a Democrat. Not a Trumpist.

      1. Pure democracy is a strawman. The senate is far from being anywhere close to being even representative, let alone pure democracy, even without the filibuster.

        And Strom Thurmond was a Republican after he was a Dixiecrat. That’s what happened to all Dixiecrats.

        1. Not really:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fielding_L._Wright

          You guys really need to stop making up history. I know, I know “history is subjective, etc.”, but, not really. There are books. And google. You can look up a right answer to this.

          1. So as evidence for your claim, whatever it is, is a guy who died in the 50s.

            It’s not that difficult to wrap your mind around this, even if it were remotely relevant to anything. The two parties have evolved with time. They aren’t even the same as they were 10 years ago, let alone 100. The Southern Democrats of yore (Dixiecrats) converted to Republicans eventually or died. It hardly matters in the slightest though, since political parties are fluid.

            Please do not participate in this lame semantic bullshit that absurdly and desperately tries to absolve current Republicans of their current racism by referring to long-dead people in the mists of time who existed in an entirely different political party environment.

            Blacks used to be overwhelmingly Republican, and now almost none are. Is that because they became racists against blacks too?

            1. I think you’re the one who insists we need to view current politics based on the political leanings of people who’ve been dead for decades, regardless of what the issue at hand is.

            2. Here’s another one. He died much later.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus

              How many of these do we need until your claim stops being truthy?

              1. Want me to start listing all current elected Republicans as evidence that there are Republicans in the notoriously racist Republican party? I don’t even know what we’re talking about.

                  1. And surprisingly, Tony comes up empty. Again.

        2. The Democrats kept their racism intact even without the Dixis. They just changed the name from segregation to Great Society. They still believe black people are sub human. As you obviously do.

          1. There were a lot of racist democrats who never became either Dixiecrats or Republicans. They just stayed racist democrats until they died.

            The myth of the racist migration to the Republican Party is a myth.

            1. Some people don’t like filling out paperwork. You can screech about Robert Byrd over and over and over until you choke on your own bullshit, but the important thing is that there is still a major political party trying to eliminate the blacks from political participation, and it’s not the one blacks vote for to the tune of 90%.

              1. So they were no “true” democrats?

                You know there’s a fallacy for that, right?

                1. I don’t believe I ever said all Democrats who ever lived were perfect beings. When your arguments are this bad, why do you maintain your position?

                  1. Because I’m right.

                  2. And you said “there is still a major political party trying to eliminate ‘the blacks’ from political participation.” …,.,.When your arguments are this bad, why do you maintain your position?

                    Oh, and ‘the blacks’? Haha. Telling. Your concern seems so genuine.

              2. >but the important thing is that there is still a major political party trying to eliminate the blacks from political participation

                The oft repeated lie without basis, unless you think Blacks are too lazy to get an ID, you racist.

                Of course, you seem quite happy to eliminate peoples participation and cancelling legitimate vote through fraud.

                Thats the difference between left and right. The claims the left makes against the right can easily be overcome by the individual to a degree that no actually point exists, its a fruitless claim. However, the claims against the left can only be beaten by the left stopping being twats and interfering in everyone’s lives.

                1. The left didn’t try to violently overthrow the constitution because they lost an election. And you know perfectly well that Republican voter suppression laws are targeted at blacks. Why do you people maintain opinions that require so much lying and racism?

                  1. Nuh, the left tries to non-violently overthrow the constitution (see attacks on 1A and 2A), by getting rid of the filibuster and possibly packing the courts in a very partisan way.

                    Unless, of course, you stop lying and admit that BLM, antifa and so on are indeed the violent arm of the left, and that we see the bulk of systemically approved violence from the left.

                    1. The only successful attempt to overthrow the Constitution was done in an area of Seattle. And it wasn’t done by Republicans.

  20. A wise elderly man once told a young me, during the Bush II years, that the Democrats opinion about the filibuster at a given moment totally depends on whether it benefits them. Nothing has changed, except the fact that they are dangerously close to a permanent majority.

    1. The principle in question is really the 200-year history of unlimited debate in the Senate – not the filibuster. (Unlimited debate was restricted in 1917, when a new rule allowed debate to be ended if two-thirds of the Senate agreed.) This allowed the minority to stop legislation or force negotiations , and this had been the case for over 200 years. This is what “the filibuster” protects, and what would change if Democrats force a rule change.
      But it’s improbable that Republicans won’t ever regain control of Congress and, concurrently, the presidency. Once that happens, Democratic Party policies will be thrown out. Republicans could format the judicial system as they like, adding 5 or 10 Supreme Court Justices. They could provide tax breaks to corporations that don’t engage in viewpoint discrimination, or simply break up big tech. They could direct all federal education funding to charter or private schools. They could void state laws that limit 2A rights. They could mandate voter ID requirements, and mandate participation in the existing voter registration state cross-check system. They could sanction employers who hire illegally. They could finish the border wall. They could change Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as they see fit.
      Democrats know this, and got that reason, their threats to end the filibuster are probably attempts to soften up a few Republican squishes in order to get Senate passage without changing the rules.

    2. permanent until 2022

      1. tax hikes and wokeness aren’t as popular as Dems seem to think they are. remember Mondale.

  21. Elections have consequences. When you vote for Leftists, nearly 100% of the consequences are negative for the voter and positive for the Leftist Elite.

  22. They used to use rope to lynch blacks, so we should ban rope as racist.

    1. Ships were used to transport blacks to slavery, so we should ban ships.

      1. Progressive logic is that ships with engines contribute to global warming, so we should go back to wind powered ships. And automobiles give people too much freedom for joy riding and polluting, so we should go back to trains.

        So much progress from progressives, trying to set humanity back a few centuries.

  23. The filibuster goes back to the early 1800s, so it’s not a relic of the Jim Crow era any more than the New Deal is a relic of the Jim Crow era.

    1. Its most notable uses were to try to prevent black people from being considered full persons under law. The McConnell era has seen an exponential increase in its abuse..

      The framers intended for the Senate to be a normal legislative body, meaning 50%+1 wins on almost all matters. You have to deal with that fact. The filibuster was an invention that happened by accident. And anyone defending McConnell’s abuse of the filibuster just wants Republicans to win without having to appeal to voters.

      1. So the Republicans have been abusing the filibuster even with a Senate majority and Republican president. They must have had too much time on their hands.

        1. I don’t know why I should have to explain recent history to you.

      2. Republicans haven’t filibustered since 2014. The Democrats filibustered 30 some-odd times during Trump’s presidency. Notably, any filibusters of the numerous civil rights bills we have passed have been done by Democrats.
        The Senate was designed to slow down hot-headed legislation (per Barrack Obama), and unlimited debate is part of that tradition.

        1. Fuck tradition. Was it tradition that drove supporters of the leader Republican party to violently assault Congress during the Electoral College count? Was it tradition Mitch McConnell was appealing to when he filibustered literally everything on the majority’s agenda every time he was in the minority? There’s no tradition of that except recent tradition. And like so many fashions of the moment, it’s not destined to last if there’s no good reason for it to.

          1. Tony you will lick any boot as long as its the left one. Its going to be fun watching you come and tell everyone how great your shit sandwich tastes for the next 4 years.

            PS. Remember, Trumps Vaccine cured China’s Virus.

            1. Fat orange lunatic did what now?

              1. LOL look how Tony is super angry and triggered 😀

      3. If we can’t pretend republicans respond to democrats, then please stop pretending you care what the framers intended.

        1. Am I pretending that? I don’t in fact put too much stock in what people dead for centuries would have to say about life in 2021, which they couldn’t conceive of in their wildest imaginations, not least because they are dead and have no imaginations.

          Let’s stop pretending all around and see where that gets us.

          1. You brought them up. If your point isn’t important, we can drop it.

  24. The idea that Republicans will take their cues from the behavior of Democrats today is ridiculous. Republicans tried to overthrow the United States government with force. We are so far beyond deferring to their minoritarian needs for…. whatever reason.

    Republicans are radically disenfranchising people all over the country as we speak. Being called a hypocrite by a two-bit libertarian asshole on the internet is a small price to pay to prevent them from taking power and finishing the job they started in January.

    1. Republicans tried to overthrow the United States government with force.

      You guys are never going to stop being drama queens over that, are you?

      1. We will if it stops being useful.

        1. the operating principle of bitchy girlfriends.

        2. In honor of the upcoming Oscars, I would like to nominate this comment for the categories of: “shockingly honest comment from the left” and “best summary of what is wrong with political discourse in less than 10 words”.

          1. On the contrary, what’s wrong with political discourse is that too many people are not interested in being useful, but in feeding identity-based hate to people like crack in exchange for votes.

            1. “……. feeding identity based hate to people like crack in exchange for votes.”

              Ah, you’re getting closer, tony. Wrong team, but you got the right idea.

            2. You should know about not being useful autist

        3. It probably already is done being useful. The only people that I have heard say “I will never vote for a republican” again when talking about the events of January 6 didn’t vote for republicans anyways. The people democrats will need to care about are likely independent voters that don’t reliably vote based on the D or R behind their name. January 6 will be long forgotten by those voters by the time the next election roles around.

          1. And wouldn’t that be awful… Right? Because we don’t want seditious neo-Nazis in charge of the United States? Yes?

            1. you miss the point though…beating the seditious and insurrection drum only works with people that are democrats(who won’t vote for a republican anyways) and maybe independents, but probably not for long and certainly not until the next election.

        4. Its not useful because everyone knows what you are up to with it.

          1. Law and order?

            1. Big question mark at the end for Tony. “Law and order? What’s that?”

        5. “”We will if it stops being useful.””

          Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. What matters is it’s useful.

      2. They did not try to overthrow the government. A few got out of hand in a protest, incited by liberal agitators in the crowd.

          1. Is that your official signature, Tony?

  25. The Founding Fathers were dead on right to fear that the country would fall victim to the allure of mob rule, the winner-take-all system that is a “pure democracy”. Somehow, I think the mob has already tipped the balance by instigating unrestrained government spending to but votes and is well protected by their comrades in the MSM. It’s hard to imagine anything that can be done now to save the ship, so maybe a quick collapse will be easier to rebuild from, perhaps morphing into a country of takers and another of makers.

    1. The founding fathers never heard of the filibuster. They designed the senate to be majority rule like any other voting body.

      And the mob is who tried to cancel the Electoral College by violence.. That’s what a mob looks like. Majorities getting their way, by contrast, is called a functioning, free society.

      1. They designed the senate to be a voice for the states, not the people, so what now?

        1. Yes, and to decide matters on simple majorities, except for clearly delineated exceptions.

          There’s only so much affirmative action rural white people get before the majority pushes back. You can understand that.

          1. And every penny they spent came from the state governments based on a head tax. Senators were elected by those state legislators and therefore kept in check.

    2. Democracy lasts until people realize they can vote themselves funds from the public treasury (or borrow it from future taxpayers).

      Which happened sometime last year.

  26. You know, the President is just a relic from the time of slavery. We should just get rid of that.

    1. So are the House and Senate…

        1. And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And I can guarantee you’re going to be hearing that a lot more as a talking point in the near future, because the Constitution is their ultimate target.

    2. Probably. The only excuses for keeping him around are because it’s hard to amend the constitution and because humans have certain silly emotional needs, like heads of state they can project their stupid desires and hatreds on.

      One day I’ll sit down and design the best possible form of government, but until then I’ll simply note that when the United States and allies go around creating democracies, they never seem to use the US system. Probably because it’s extremely flawed.

      We’re about to see if we can repair some of those flaws or succumb to them. I fully expect libertarians here to be of absolutely no help. I get the feeling they’re so weak-minded and easily swayed by exploited cultural grievances that they’ll welcome the next fat orange Nazi to stroke their racist boner as dictator for life. It happens all the time, especially in countries with large rural populations and flawed national governments.

      1. Your commitment to pragmatic slacktivism is inspiring.

        I’m just here for the laughs.

        1. Pragmatism and slackerism, two fine American philosophies.

          I tell the loony left the same thing. Voting for the lesser of two evils is more good you will do the world than an entire life of attending protests or even a successful YouTube pundit career.

          1. Anything but actually solve a problem. That’s a lot of work.

            1. Work done by politicians we elect.

              1. I’ve frequently challenged you to name a single election where you’re vote mattered.

                It’s kind of silly claiming to be part of solutions where you don’t effect the outcome.

                1. By all means, don’t vote.

                  1. You might as well have written in “Donald Trump” for every election you voted in, and the result would have been the same.

                    What exactly are you accomplishing?

      2. People who design governments don’t follow the US system because it is designed to block the government from doing too much, and people who design governments want government to be able to do whatever it wants.

      3. “…..weak minded and easily swayed by exploited cultural grievances…..”

        Ok, I get it now. You’re a parody.

      4. when the United States and allies go around creating democracies, they never seem to use the US system. Probably because it’s extremely flawed.

        Almost like it requires a certain amount of cultural maturity, of the sort that has been stripped away from our citizenry both by design (insert your progressive education trend du jour) and by accident (mass Latin immigration; the intellectual coddling of the millenial by her boomer/ early Gen-X parents).

        For the mid-70’s Canadiens and the mid-90’s Devils the neutral zone trap was cheat code to more goals. For lesser teams it was downward spiral to no event hockey. There’s a metaphor buried in there somewhere.

  27. “There’s a lesson here for Democrats in 2021. Nuking the legislative filibuster—especially when you have a majority so slim that a single election could flip control of the Senate back to the GOP—seems like a decision Democrats will regret sooner rather than later.”

    They’d still have to get past a Presidential veto, and the Democrats figure they’ve got a lock on the Presidency forever. The Senate, too, once they add D.C., Puerto Rico, Cuba (seriously, I heard somebody propose this) and however many more new states they can squeeze in.

    1. I am really, really curious. Is said person proposing the forcible takeover of Cuba, believe that a socialist dictatorship that has been calling us the devil for decades just wanted an invitation to join our capitalist democracy (Castro is the ultimate tsundere, I guess), that we would invite just Gitmo to be a state, or is over a century out of date with current events and doesn’t realize Cuba isn’t a US protectorate anymore?

    2. Puerto Rico should be a state, if the people there vote for it. It has more than enough people.

      The District of Criminals should never be a state. It’s the seat of the federal government, specifically set aside in the Constitution for that purpose.

      And if Cuba wants to hang their leaders and accept the Bill of Rights in its entirety, we should welcome them into the USA.

      1. assuming their leaders are tried and convicted for their many alleged crimes against humanity first, of course.

  28. This article is completely insane. 1917 wasn’t “decades before Jim Crow”. It was horrific Jim Crow that was FAR worse than what happened during the Civil Rights Era. What preceded Jim Crow was slavery, not some halcyon period of no discrimination. This writer is mad with white supremacist denial and ignorance.

    1. Whatever, libertarians have been denying reality for years, but they are worlds better than the insane left wing progressive idiots inhabiting Congress and the White House today.

      Still yes the facts on the ground are that Democrats have been using the filibuster as recently as last year, so their objection is moot and ridiculous, and the fact that Obama is quoted means irrationality and stupidity is close at hand. He’s still never provided his college and law transcripts because he never graduated.

    2. The North didn’t have slavery.

      1. Sure it did, they just abolished it without war, so we hear less about it.

  29. Democrats claim the filibuster is racist. The Democrats use the filibuster 327 times in 2020 the Republicans once. I think we now know who the racists really are.

  30. The Democrats would be smart to end the filibuster at least as it applies to voting rights. As otherwise, the GOP can win in 2022 by suppressing the votes of American citizens.

    The current GOP really doesn’t have any policies that are that important that could be passed with or without a filibuster. They won’t be able to gut Obamacare and they aren’t likely to go crazy on taxes. So what will they do besides cultural issues such as defunding Planned Parenthood.

    The GOP are terrified of the end of the filibuster. The idea that the Democrats would be worse off doesn’t make sense when the GOP really has no concern with governing.

    1. Agreed.

    2. No one’s right to vote is being denied by adding some common sense restrictions.

      That’s the lefty argument on Second Amendment rights anyway.

  31. Duh! Thanks un-Reason, how would I have ever known that without your wisdom? (sarc)

    Now, how are you going to convince the idiots that watch CNN and MSNBC.

  32. So the filibuster is racist. Showing and ID vote is racist. Clown country

    1. You missed one, being anti-racist is racist! (sarc)

  33. I was never a fan of the filibuster. I always thought we never needed a super majority since we have 3 co-equal branches of government and check and balances.

    I think that’s not true now. And the filibuster will just be a speed bump on the road that leads to the cliff

  34. All laws should require a two-thirds (or more) majority of both houses of Congress to pass. If a law is really needed, there shouldn’t by 49% of the people opposing it.

    1. What if 51% oppose the status quo? What if the status quo is 90% tax rates on the wealthy?

      1. All laws should have a maximum term of 10 years.

      2. Tony unicorn argument bullshit.

        Fallacy: A country like that doesn’t exist, and won’t. If it did, it would be so fundamentally different from the US, that it would likely have a completely different structure of government.

        Answer: If 51% oppose the status quo and therefore want to force radical and painful change on 49%, they better rethink their definition of being “inclusive”. If, in addition to that, the “49%” are armed Americans, they have one more reason to rethink their definition of “inclusive”.

        1. This is exactly what bothered me during President Biden’s press conference. When asked if Republicans would not support his preferred legislation, he spoke about using the Vice President to break ties and possibly to end the filibuster. There was not a single word of finding compromise with Republicans to build a governing consensus. Even Clinton and Gingrich managed to find consensus from time to time up until Clinton’s impeachment. After that, it’s been revenge, naked power grabs, and a to-hell-with-the-opposition, scorched earth approach to politics, both in the halls of power and in homes and places of business across the country.

          1. Yea. I actually have what I would call a pretty solid concept of “inclusion”. It’s not ready for the 21st century though, because it goes by caring about what groups of individuals have in mind based on shared interests and beliefs, not based on race, gender and financial background. I care about minds, not bodies.

            And with that being considered, we would kinda have to acknowledge and take into account what 49% of the population believe in, even if 51% say its evil, racist and sexist.

            1. What I am saying sounds pretty woke upon re-reading. It actually isn’t. Because if the woke left would really be consequent about what they believe, they would allow waaaay more kinds of identification then just their genital-based stuff they push everywhere. And then they would be inclusive of all sorts of groups, including the straight-laced, gun-positive, religious hicks that they despise so much, but who nevertheless make up a deeply substantial part of the population. But no, we only have to care about the 0.1% that are unsure about their biological gender. Yea sure. Are they even aware of how random this is?

              take this in now, I love my transgender family members, but I tell them in the face I am a member of the NRA. Everyone deals with it. We have a good time. Part of it is probably because nobody feels like they have to be an asshole about the other one. And, btw, I would protect them with my life.

        2. I’m talking about the logic behind requiring a supermajority before you can pass any law. That’s not how America was designed either, or any functioning society.

          Maybe if the 49% don’t like that they don’t get everything they demand out of their fellow citizens, they should tweak their unappealing qualities so that they become part of the 51%.

          Or they could reflexively oppose everything that majority wants, including believing science is real, just to be angry cunts about everything.

          You’re in the minority. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re wrong, but I’m here to clear up that little mystery. You’re wrong. Your ideas are bad. Nothing makes that clearer than your pathetic threat to react to not getting everything you demand by committing armed revolution against the most powerful military in the known cosmos. Good luck with that.

          Being in the minority isn’t all lollipops and unicorn farts, but it can be a great time. You get your own dance clubs. You get oppression points! And boy if rightwingers don’t like to spend those before they’re earned.

  35. So when do the conspiracy theories start about Biden wearing an earpiece and being jacked up on uppers like the left said about W? Personally I suspect Biden is an animatronic device being remotely controlled, with just enough age-related cognitive decline factored in to make it believable. They stretched his face a little too tight though.

  36. “Once you change the rules and surrender the Senate’s institutional power, you never get it back.” Seen from France, IMHO, It seem that you rightfully see senate as a safe guard against potential “toddlers” in the WH (like the one you had recently). You are right. But the time will come sooner or later when the senate itself will be also invaded by “toddlers”, if you do not adress the problem of toddlers. There could be some new “sanity” rules, or a new amendment to the constitution, so that a “toddler” could not as easily as before access to power, wether in WH, Senate, or Congress.That is a huge and hard thinking, I admit, but it has to be done.

    1. IMHHHHO needs a fat capital ‘H’ with a semi-informed, european smarty like this wannabe above me. Also, learn English, buster.

      Wussy Macron sucks EU toddler dick any day of the week and loves his govt almighty buyup of the private sector. Clean up your own house first.

      “That is a huge and hard thinking, I admit, but it has to be done.”

      Yea, “A” huge and hard thinking has to be done. That’s why you should probably take a seat in the back row again. Nobody cares what you “admit”.

  37. IMHHHHO needs a fat capital ‘H’ with a semi-informed, european smarty like this wannabe above me. Also, learn English, buster.

    Wussy Macron sucks EU toddler dick any day of the week and loves his govt almighty buyup of the private sector. Clean up your own house first.

    “That is a huge and hard thinking, I admit, but it has to be done.”

    Yea, “A” huge and hard thinking has to be done. That’s why you should probably take a seat in the back row again. Nobody cares what you “admit”.

  38. The Founders never put the “filibuster” in the Constitution. It’s a non existent policy that was enacted in a Future Congress to appease the Minority. The Filibuster should be used sparingly and not to obstruct everything. The way it is now is NOT the way it was intended to be used. It needs to go.

    1. Noone said the filibuster was part of the constitution. It was installed to make sure the minority won’t be ignored. Is 49% of all people (really close to half within margin of error) a minority to you, btw?

      The filibuster clearly needs to stay for now – you fucking libtard – to balance for the 30+ uses the democrats made of it in the last 4 years. After that we may talk about it. Also, I love everyone who got an AR-15 last year. keep buying these guns America! 😀

      1. What does Peter Noone know about American politics?

        1. “What does Peter Noone know about American politics?”

          He knows that Mrs. Brown has got a lovely daughter.

      2. Do you know what is supposed to keep the majority faction in a legislature from ignoring the minority faction? A desire to appeal to a majority of the electorate so that they can get re-elected. The minority party can work to appeal to voters so that their arguments push the majority party to compromise with them or back off of unpopular plans. Obstruction, such as with the filibuster, is what the minority party does when they know that they are on the losing side of popular opinion. They can’t win enough seats to have a majority and implement their agenda, so they appeal to the base of their party and obstruct the other side. That makes the party faithful in the districts that they have been winning feel good, but it doesn’t do anything to win over the voters they need in the swing districts.

        Why would they do that, then? Because we can see the Republicans doing the things that will keep them from having to deal with any consequences from these tactics. They can gerrymander districts in the states that they control so that there simply aren’t as many swing districts that they would need to win. They manipulate election laws to discourage the other side’s voters. They don’t need to go so far as the old time voter suppression to make a difference. If a few percent more of the other side’s voters don’t maintain IDs like a current and valid driver’s license than their side’s voters (since they don’t drive and don’t have a car, haven’t had to open a new bank account in over 10 years, etc.), then make sure that those IDs are required to vote, and that they need to be recent. Every hoop to jump through and visit to a government office that a voter needs to make is a chance for that voter to give up and not bother. The same thing with shutting down and consolidating polling places in counties and precincts that are strongholds of the opposing party. They can purge voter registration rolls aggressively, despite charges from voting rights advocates that many voters that do still live where they are registered end up getting purged with little to no benefit to preventing fraud or people voting in jurisdictions that they no longer live in.

        With so many key elections in recent years having come down to ~1% or less, they don’t have to discourage or prevent that many of the other side’s voters from voting in order to win races they otherwise might lose.

        Republicans simply have become a party that no longer tries to appeal to a broad majority of the American electorate. They have become a party that focuses almost entirely on building and maintaining fervent and loyal support from a base that has no chance of being a majority of the country now or in the future. That is why they have become so strident in their defense of anti-majoritarian features of our Constitution (unequal representation in the Senate, and the Electoral College), geography and population distribution (the rural-urban divide between the parties makes it easy to gerrymander legislative majorities when statewide results are practically split evenly), and other tactics not in the Constitution, but that can still be used to their benefit.

      3. Both sides used it I say for good or bad regardless of who’s in power it needs to go. The majority get’s to make the rules. Don’t like it? Adjust your platform to get the majority. It’s pretty simple

  39. President Biden is absolutely right

    1. No Biden is wrong. The Democrats will be in the minority again someday, and then you will find out just how wrong.

  40. “Racism” is the Democrat’s magic incantation. Invoking it, they can attack anything without remorse.

  41. When Republicans robbed Obama (and voters) of about 100 federal judge picks and a U.S. Supreme Court pick, they no longer have the right to complain.

    In 2021, Republicans attempted to overturn a n election and subvert the U.S. Constitution. Just this week, Republicans tried to make it harder for voters to case ballots in Georgia.

    Republicans should solve this grand theft or be quiet.

    1. May the chains rest lightly on all those that have requested chains.

      As for myself, I will not willingly accept them, nor will I embrace them.

      Of course, we have “no more mean tweets” going on. At least we have that!

      1. Also the ostentatious disregard for the hundreds of thousands of dead and dying Americans.

      2. And the attempted violent overthrow of the United States.

        Sure, we were only concerned about his Twitter etiquette.

  42. President Biden is absolutely right

  43. “Anti Racism” is one of the most evil things in the history of man. Hitler and Pol Pot would be proud of it.

  44. “Anti Racism” is one of the most evil things in the history of man. Hitler and Pol Pot would be proud of it.

    https://j.wardamag.com/

  45. Show me in the constitution where it says that the filibuster is important. The winning party is the voice of the people. If you don’t like it then wait two years and vote the scumbags out. The arguments backing the filibuster are weak sauce. At one point it was used judiciously, now it’s abused constantly. Fucking wait your turn and throw the bums out you fucking snowflakes

  46. MY EYES!

    THIS BLINDING FLASH OF THE OBVIOUS IS DEADLY!!

  47. Makes sense. Now that the left has mastered ballot box stuffing and mail in ballot fraud, it makes sense they would now move to eliminate any chance for a minority party to have a voice. The ‘majority vote’ misnomer carries the idea that the public has the final say- it won’t. This ends minority opposition indefinitely. Good luck, America.

Comments are closed.