WaPo: Trump turns on the filibuster

[Virginiá]

Trump is now talking about consolidating his power

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/29/trump-is-now-talking-about-consolidating-his-own-power/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cashew]

Please let this happen.

And to answer the question, it is seemingly no if you were to ask them now, however they will definitely cave if McConnell were to side with Trump.

[Ronnie]

Do it, McConnell...DO IT!

[The_Doctor]

The Senate GOP might do it but the Democrats would find single payer easier to ram through with 51 votes. That's why the GOP doesn't want to erode the filibuster for the Senate because they know the Democrats will rule Congress again one day and when they do the filibuster may the only fig leaf protecting the GOP.

Additionally the filibuster also protects McConnell from the far right whom he has long detested. A 51 seat threshold means the crazies get more power and Mitch McConnell would be forced to go along. Even if they abolished it now the radicalism of the Republican base would threaten the Senate Majority by 2020-2022.

They could do it. But I'm skeptical how far McC wants to go.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's difficult for me to escape the conclusion that WaPo's tone about this is hackery, considering that axing the legislative filibuster would be a good thing, even if Trump wants to do it for the wrong reasons.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump's desire to be an autocrat has never been in question. I have seen nothing yet to change my opinion that he is too idiotic, ignorant, incompetent, and insane to have much success.

Which is not to say he isn't dangerous to the nation, just not as a successful dictator.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It'd be more likely after they presumably gain seats next year.

[Confused Democrat]

It's difficult for me to escape the conclusion that WaPo's tone about this is hackery, considering that axing the legislative filibuster would be a good thing, even if Trump wants to do it for the wrong reasons.

Why would axing the legislative filibuster be a good thing? It seems like a terrible thing to me.

[pbrower2a]

The danger is that Republicans might use the filibuster to entrench power more fully -- perhaps changing the electoral laws to the advantage of Republicans.

[Virginiá]

Why would axing the legislative filibuster be a good thing? It seems like a terrible thing to me.

Because it's been used for years to block otherwise good policy. Considering the ideological goals of each party, it mainly benefits Republicans, who at least partially succeed merely by obstruction. Democrats suffer more from its existence because their agenda includes a ton of things that require 60+ votes right now (expanding/creating social programs, etc)

While Republicans could go somewhat hog wild themselves without the filibuster, I think people might be surprised at what would actually happen. As much as Republicans would like to gut the safety net, it would be political suicide. In the long-run, it would be more beneficial for progressive policy to have no filibuster that enables complete obstruction.

Personally, I'm not against a filibuster, but if Senators want to block a bill, they ought to be forced to actually stand there and talk for as long as they want to keep it from passing. Have their whole caucus take turns for weeks if they want.

The danger is that Republicans might use the filibuster to entrench power more fully -- perhaps changing the electoral laws to the advantage of Republicans.

That is one of my biggest worries with this issue. I'm just about convinced Congressional Republicans would start acting like slightly more moderate versions of state parties in this regard - changing the rules whenever they feel Democrats are gaining power. 9th circuit striking down too many laws/regulations? No problem, just break it up in such a way that Trump gets to appoint half a dozen or more new judges. Voters passing gerrymandering reform for Congressional districts in Republican states? No problem, just pass a law banning independent commissions. Minorities and young people gaining more voting power? No problem, enact strict national photo ID and citizenship verification requirements. Surely those young people won't have any problem producing copious amounts of documents that they probably don't even have on them!

etc, etc.

[Adam Griffin]

Nuke it. Give 'em the rope.

[Confused Democrat]

Why would axing the legislative filibuster be a good thing? It seems like a terrible thing to me.

Because it's been used for years to block otherwise good policy. Considering the ideological goals of each party, it mainly benefits Republicans, who at least partially succeed merely by obstruction. Democrats suffer more from its existence because their agenda includes a ton of things that require 60+ votes right now (expanding/creating social programs, etc)

While Republicans could go somewhat hog wild themselves without the filibuster, I think people might be surprised at what would actually happen. As much as Republicans would like to gut the safety net, it would be political suicide. In the long-run, it would be more beneficial for progressive policy to have no filibuster that enables complete obstruction.

Personally, I'm not against a filibuster, but if Senators want to block a bill, they ought to be forced to actually stand there and talk for as long as they want to keep it from passing. Have their whole caucus take turns for weeks if they want.

The danger is that Republicans might use the filibuster to entrench power more fully -- perhaps changing the electoral laws to the advantage of Republicans.

That is one of my biggest worries with this issue. I'm just about convinced Congressional Republicans would start acting like slightly more moderate versions of state parties in this regard - changing the rules whenever they feel Democrats are gaining power. 9th circuit striking down too many laws/regulations? No problem, just break it up in such a way that Trump gets to appoint half a dozen or more new judges. Voters passing gerrymandering reform for Congressional districts in Republican states? No problem, just pass a law banning independent commissions. Minorities and young people gaining more voting power? No problem, enact strict national photo ID and citizenship verification requirements. Surely those young people won't have any problem producing copious amounts of documents that they probably don't even have on them!

etc, etc.

Idk, what you're saying makes sense to me, but I don't want the Senate to become more like the House. Sure the legislative filibuster might be annoying for Democrats, but I kind of think that might be for our own good. Requiring a bill to have 60 votes to pass has a moderating effect on legislation, and I like that.

If your party can manage to put a super majority in the Senate, then I believe that's when you're party is justified in going hog wild when it comes to passing legislation.

[Virginiá]

Sure the legislative filibuster might be annoying for Democrats, but I kind of think that might be for our own good. Requiring a bill to have 60 votes to pass has a moderating effect on legislation, and I like that.

In a better world, I'd agree. Things used to be less partisan, and the filibuster wasn't abused like it is today, but those times have passed (for now). America has a lot of problems that are continuing to build up, and at some point we have to solve them in a way that doesn't compound the problem, and we (Democrats) can't do that if Republicans decide to filibuster everything just to score cheap political points in hopes of winning more seats next election. If changing the filibuster isn't an option, perhaps putting 50 million dollars and tens of thousands of volunteers in Kentucky 2020 to oust McConnell would be a wise choice, although his brand of ruthless & shameless politics may have already become entrenched.

Until the parties find a way to make peace and not resort to this kind of behavior anymore, we might have to consider things like gutting the filibuster. That's just my take anyhow.

[Confused Democrat]

Sure the legislative filibuster might be annoying for Democrats, but I kind of think that might be for our own good. Requiring a bill to have 60 votes to pass has a moderating effect on legislation, and I like that.

In a better world, I'd agree. Things used to be less partisan, and the filibuster wasn't abused like it is today, but those times have passed (for now). America has a lot of problems that are continuing to build up, and at some point we have to solve them in a way that doesn't compound the problem, and we (Democrats) can't do that if Republicans decide to filibuster everything just to score cheap political points in hopes of winning more seats next election. If changing the filibuster isn't an option, perhaps putting 50 million dollars and tens of thousands of volunteers in Kentucky 2020 to oust McConnell would be a wise choice, although his brand of ruthless & shameless politics may have already become entrenched.

Until the parties find a way to make peace and not resort to this kind of behavior anymore, we might have to consider things like gutting the filibuster. That's just my take anyhow.

I don't believe this polarization is going to last forever which is why I think getting rid of the legislative filibuster is a bad idea. Once you get rid of it it's gone forever, no?

[Famous Mortimer]

Get rid of filibuster. It's extra constitutional, anti-democratic, and ridiculous.

I would like to see American government be more like European parliamentary government. If a party controls the executive and the legislature, let them rule as dictators. If they do a bad job, they will lose the next election.

[EnglishPete]

The Senate GOP might do it but the Democrats would find single payer easier to ram through with 51 votes. That's why the GOP doesn't want to erode the filibuster for the Senate because they know the Democrats will rule Congress again one day and when they do the filibuster may the only fig leaf protecting the GOP.

If that's their hope then that's a false hope. Imagine a circumstance where the Democratic Party went through all the internal turmoil needed to make Medicare for All the official policy of their Presidential candidate, their Senate Leadership and their House leadership. Suppose in the meanwhile the Republicans continue to screw up healthcare reforms, as they are doing now. Supposing they then win the Presidency and majorities in both houses.

In that situation do some Republicans really think that the Democrats would turn around to their base and say "Yes we know we made Single Payer the centerpiece of the campaign, we know we won the election, but you are going to have to continue to worry about dealing with insurance companies, continue to pay massive premiums and co-pays, continue to worry about the possibility of a health crisis in your family leading to bankrupcy because muh Senate Traditions"

That's just fantasy. It that situation the filibuster would be gone in a heartbeat. If Republicans think that muh Senate Traditions are going to save them from Single Payer they're living in a dream world. The only thing that will save them from single payer is if they actually wake up and smell the coffee and bring in some effective healthcare reforms themselves. They will never get 60 Senate votes for this so one of the things they will have to do to avoid Single Payer is to kill the filibuster themselves.

[Pericles]

Trump will not kill the filibuster.  Mitch McConnell will make the decision on his own.