The main point being missed in the senate filibuster discussion is the distinction between refusing to yield the floor and a majority vote.
Majority vote is being morphed into the word “Filibuster”. The motive is to undermine majority rule disguised as a conversation about the merits of ‘unlimited speech’, aka: the filibuster.
The rationale to preserve the filibuster is characterized as protecting those defeated in the vote, some say. So those with less votes win. Let that sink in. We have a winner take all system where we let the losers of the vote prevail. Then we wonder why we can’t get things done.
On one hand, the narrative implies that we need a 60 vote majority to avoid an unending debate. “Oh no, we better concede” senators say, and legislation is defeated.
On the other hand, they are protecting that same extended speech, they say, pretending that means we must sacrifice majority rule.
The current filibuster is a double shot of deception. The truth is debates always end and the majority vote prevails, by law, is the intention.
Very few pundits seem to clarify the difference and use the word filibuster to describe a procedure that is incompatible with majority vote, when it’s not. Losing one means losing the other, is implied, which is not true. The filibuster is compatible with the majority vote.
The filibuster is a sequence of “what-ifs?” that if actually occurred, still wouldn’t prevent a majority vote. That’s why it never gets explained properly by the pros because what is implied cannot even happen. The filibuster, if actually executed, would not prevent a majority vote.
Rule 22 allows a “cloture” vote to end debate, with 60 votes. You can’t get to a cloture vote to end debate unless you first have that debate, and you never do. Because if you did, the filibusters would eventually end and the senators would proceed to a vote where the majority would prevail, as the rules intend.
Majority vote would prevail, filibustered or not, if the senate debates. If the senate doesn’t debate, there’s no path to cloture, so there’s no 60 vote threshold to consider as a parliamentary maneuver. It takes sixty votes to close debate, so have the debate, or you lose.
Them’s the rules.
The filibuster is being misused to require that 60% of members agree to begin debate. It’s a senate rule that violates the majority rule intention of the constitution.
The super-minority in the senate led by the minority turtle are threatening a scorched-earth strategy to obstruct the majority. If the majority removes the filibuster the minority turtle is gonna pull out some rules, he says, like you have never seen.
He’s going to further utilize the power of the rules to obstruct democracy. He knows some rules that you can’t even imagine. The implied ‘scorched-earth’ threat though, is real. The minority will claim veto authority, unless..
VP Harris should take the chair and dictate her interpretation of the rules to the senators. Her legal advisors say that she’s in charge. They believe she has the authority to control the chamber, as the presiding officer, and execute the rules to a more favorable interpretation, if necessary, to get things done.
New Rule – Interpret the rules correctly.
Legislation passes by majority vote and it takes 3/5th’s to obstruct proceeding to anything. That’s how it’s done. That’s what it says in the rules and the rules should be declared as enacted and enforced as necessary, from now on.
Joe should order up some extra presidential signing pens.
Resistance to the ‘For the People’ agenda should be reason enough for expulsion from the senate. Kamala should be securing the votes and applying pressure as necessary for a majority vote
A new voting rights act is so important right now, for the public. Failure could be horrifying. Failure would be unforgivable, imo, but almost predictable. I’ve been doing that here for a long time.
My fear is that success for voting rights will disguise the fine print failure. Like for profit health insurance, it’s not a good idea but we do it.
If history is any guide, and it is, democracy is one of those things you don’t get back after you lose it. It’s like big money buying the only left-wing talk-radio station in town, you know it ain’t coming back.
The filibuster has been a scam perpetrated against the public for decades. It’s time to declare it for what it is. It’s a political crime.
I just a did a review of the Wikipedia page. This is how they explain majority vote being changed from 50% to 60%. This is what it says;
“The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item.”
As if that is an adequate explanation?
How does threatening a filibuster change the majority from 51 to 60 votes? It doesn’t. And notice how that sentence ends, confusing the cloture vote with the vote to pass legislation. The words end debate should not be in that sentence because a filibuster threat prevents the debate from ever starting.
Sixty votes to end a debate makes sense, otherwise a simple majority could prevent the debate. The senate, by current interpretation of the rules, allows any senator to prevent the debate by objecting to it.
Requiring sixty votes to pass legislation is a violation of the constitution, and the senate rules. The misinterpretation that makes it possible is implausible, and antidemocratic.
The filibuster theory is a scam. It is based on the fraudulent belief that a senate debate can theoretically have no end without even beginning.
The logic is unsustainable. It’s like saying, “You have to pay me time and a half or I’m gonna work overtime.” Makes sense, right?
It’s an empty threat that dictates our democratic failure. Our leaders bow down on bended knee and concede to the empty threat of a filibuster.