If Democrats win WH, Senate, & House... should/will Schumer nix the filibuster?

[Blue3]

If Democrats win WH, Senate, & House... should/will Schumer nix the filibuster?

(assuming Chuck Schumer is the Majority Leader, since Reid is retiring)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes/Hopefully

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, McConnell will never work out a useful agreement,  it will be only a game. Only on Judicial vacancies of course. MINIMIN Wage can go through reconciliation.  And Garland is there to strike down concealed carry weapons.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Should they? Yes. As I've said for years, we should return the Senate to requiring an actual talking filibuster to stop things. Will they? Probably not.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Should they? Yes. As I've said for years, we should return the Senate to requiring an actual talking filibuster to stop things. Will they? Probably not.

Not on legislation, but on judicial vacancies.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Should they? Yes. As I've said for years, we should return the Senate to requiring an actual talking filibuster to stop things. Will they? Probably not.

Not on legislation, but on judicial vacancies.

I would argue for everything.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems arent gonna take that chance due to Obamacare, and they can raise minimum wage on reconciliation,  and I would argue if Scalia wouldnt have died, to push getting rid of it due to concealed carry. But, Garland can do that for us.

[Virginiá]

Should they? Yes. As I've said for years, we should return the Senate to requiring an actual talking filibuster to stop things. Will they? Probably not.

I would hope they would given how fed up the public is for politicians not getting things done. This de facto 60 vote majority required for legislation impeded a lot of things in 2009 - 2011.

I just feel like Senate Democrats will be less likely to put up with endless obstructionism this time around, especially if by miracle they take back all of Congress.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems did had 60, but Arlen Specter promised Obama, health care reform will be used for his vote. He voted for Bush W tax cuts, he wasnt going to take that on right away.

[Vosem]

Should he? Yeah, I think there should be some effort to take it back.

Will he? Considering that Republicans to retake the Senate in 2018 is almost a certain preposition in the event that Democrats take the Senate in 2016 (even with _trump as the candidate, not a certain thing at all), he certainly won't.

[Orser67]

I certainly don't think that they should get rid of it the moment they enter office, nor do I think they will. So for me it depends on what the GOP is filibustering. If the Dems can't get a perfectly reasonable Supreme Court candidate through due to a filibuster, then I would favor getting rid of it. If the GOP stonewalls every minor piece of legislation, then I would also probably get rid of it.

But if a reasonable number of Republican Senators show a willingness to work towards bipartisan legislation, then I wouldn't want to get rid of it, since it would empower Republicans to pass huge tax cuts and other bills without having to worry about a filibuster or the Byrd Rule. I think that Republicans are likely to have the majority in the Senate more often than not over the next decade, so I don't think the Dems should get rid of the filibuster unless the reward for it is huge or they just can't govern with it in place.

[Sir Mohamed]

I don't know what he will do, but he should. Filibusters are a scam. Majority is majority. End of story.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Should they? Yes. As I've said for years, we should return the Senate to requiring an actual talking filibuster to stop things. Will they? Probably not.

[Frodo]

I certainly don't think that they should get rid of it the moment they enter office, nor do I think they will. So for me it depends on what the GOP is filibustering. If the Dems can't get a perfectly reasonable Supreme Court candidate through due to a filibuster, then I would favor getting rid of it. If the GOP stonewalls every minor piece of legislation, then I would also probably get rid of it.

But if a reasonable number of Republican Senators show a willingness to work towards bipartisan legislation, then I wouldn't want to get rid of it, since it would empower Republicans to pass huge tax cuts and other bills without having to worry about a filibuster or the Byrd Rule. I think that Republicans are likely to have the majority in the Senate more often than not over the next decade, so I don't think the Dems should get rid of the filibuster unless the reward for it is huge or they just can't govern with it in place.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

That's why Reconciliation will be used to get rid of sequestration.  The Nuclear Option is only known for Judicial vacancies, which was provoked in 2005, by Bill Frist, not Reid.