Is the filibuster now dead?

[Cashew]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-walker-end-the-filibuster

I do not see any way that Trump can avoid having his SCOTUS nominee does not get filibustered.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Of course, Republicans are going to take this chance to radically change our country in a Far-Right fashion as soon as possible you really think they'll let a minority of Democratic senators get in their way of ripping this nation apart?

America as we've been fighting for is over for the foreseeable future.

[Mr. Reactionary]

They'd be complete fools to weaken the filibuster.

[publicunofficial]

Anyone who thinks Mitch McConnell lets the filibuster stay around has a much much higher opinion of the Republican Party than I do.

[KingSweden]

Anyone who thinks Mitch McConnell lets the filibuster stay around has a much much higher opinion of the Republican Party than I do.

From what I've read he's actually pretty adamant about not gutting it (for now).

[The Ex-Factor]

Honestly I would be fine with getting rid of the filibuster. Democrats are far more invested in good governance than Republicans, and getting rid of the filibuster means each party in power will more easily enact their policy preferences. In the long run that's better.

[Illiniwek]

They will definitely do away with it.

[Jeffster]

Only for judges. There is no way they get rid of it for legislation, despite what some of the base may want. The reason is because the legislative priorities of Democrats, such as creating a new government program, can be blocked by a filibuster. While the legislative priority of Republicans, such as cutting taxes or defunding government programs, can be done through reconciliation.

Why would Republicans give up their best defensive weapon against a future Democratic Senate, when they don't benefit from its removal as much as their opponents would when in power?

[ApatheticAustrian]

since the pubs have practically destroyed governing through the FB anyway, giving them the first shot without it seems "fair"....at least the electorate is going to get what it wishes to.

[Kalimantan]

Could they get rid of it, do some legislating, then reintroduce it through legislation that would prevent its removal ever again?

[Orser67]

For legislation, depends on how much they can get through via reconciliation.

For the court, depends on how the nomination battle(s) go. I could actually see a Trump nominee getting 8 Democratic votes if he picks someone who is somewhat moderate. In that scenario, Democrats might vote for cloture rather than risk getting rid of the judicial filibuster and being stuck with Clarence Thomas 2.0.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

He should!

The idea that you should need 60% support to pass anything in the Senate, which has been the practical result of the filibuster for the last years, is silly. It was a stupid rule back when Republicans used it to obstruct president Obama, it will be stupid when he leaves office.

[°Leprechaun]

It will be a critical issue. It is the only check on the GOP currently unless the GOP decides to use the nuclear option or Dems are unwilling to stand up to the GOP majorities.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The use of Judicial filibustering is over, Dems had their chance and lost the election.  Now, Trump will get to fill Scalia's seat. It won't change much, because Immigration will be stalled in Congress and most of the cases have been decided already by the Roberts court. 

[senyor_brownbear]

Could they get rid of it, do some legislating, then reintroduce it through legislation that would prevent its removal ever again?

I'm pretty sure no legislation can force a 60% vote barrier on a future Senate.  That would have to be a constitutional amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Could they get rid of it, do some legislating, then reintroduce it through legislation that would prevent its removal ever again?

I'm pretty sure no legislation can force a 60% vote barrier on a future Senate.  That would have to be a constitutional amendment.

Yes there is, it's called a constitutional amendment.  That said, the filibuster was never so beloved that it could ever have been enshrined by adding it to the constitution.