Filibuster... Kill it or save it?

[Diogenes]

Changing the filibuster (say, dropping it to 51 votes or killing it entirely) is the Senate voting to update its own internal playbook.

They can do that with a simple majority vote because the Constitution says the Senate gets to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings" (Article I, Section 5).

No Constitutional amendment is needed

The Constitution says you must have a Senate. It doesn't say the Senate must let one guy stall everything with endless talking. That rule is just something the Senate invented and can un-invent whenever 51 of them feel like it.

 

[evince]

I said it once in a different thread b cause its off topic for this asinine thread. But tell me why I need to repeat it? You can go marvel at it in my thread, or not I don't give a shit you retarded tampon

Nice Bob and weave little piggy

Spin and squeal some more

It’s kinda cute in a very sad way

 

[Yakuda]

Nice Bob and weave little piggy

Spin and squeal some more

It’s kinda cute in a very sad way

No will make you go and read it suzie.

 

[evince]

No will make you go and read it suzie.

Thank you for admitting your claimed source is shit you want hidden

 

[Yakuda]

Thank you for admitting your claimed source is shit you want hidden

You win Suzie. Did that help your period? Cramping again huh?

 

[evince]

Dear fucking idiot

I’m 68

You do the math

Fuck you very much

 

[evince]

We understand

Facts don’t follow you around

Your stench kills them when you get to near them

 

[gfm7175]

To prevent a party from steamrolling the country with a simple majority. All levels of government have many situations where more than a simple majority is necessary to pass legislation, make changes, etc.

You wouldn't be playing dumb if it were Dems in the position that Republicans are in.

I'm not playing anything; I just want to win.

I know what Team Donkey is going to do FIRST THING upon gaining the power to do so (they are going to remove the filibuster rule), so I'd rather have Republicans "play to win" and nuke it first. Why constrain the implementation of your own agenda when your opponent won't likewise constrain the implementation of theirs?

It's called "winning". It's called "being smart". It's called "growing a set of balls".

 

[evince]

I'm not playing anything; I just want to win.

I know what Team Donkey is going to do FIRST THING upon gaining the power to do so (they are going to remove the filibuster rule), so I'd rather have Republicans "play to win" and nuke it first. Why constrain the implementation of your own agenda when your opponent won't likewise constrain the implementation of theirs?

It's called "winning". It's called "being smart". It's called "growing a set of balls".

Link to proof of your idiot conjecture?


Your fucks are the ones trying to do it


PUBLICLY

 

[ZenMode]

I'm not playing anything; I just want to win.

I know what Team Donkey is going to do FIRST THING upon gaining the power to do so (they are going to remove the filibuster rule), so I'd rather have Republicans "play to win" and nuke it first. Why constrain the implementation of your own agenda when your opponent won't likewise constrain the implementation of theirs?

It's called "winning". It's called "being smart". It's called "growing a set of balls".

Which is why you surely support Trump misusing emergency powers, also. Like I said, you don't mind a dictator authoritarian as long as he/she is your dictator/authoritarian.

 

[gfm7175]

Link to proof of your idiot conjecture?


Your fucks are the ones trying to do it


PUBLICLY

For one example: How else are leftists going to "stack the supreme court", as they are openly calling for?

 

[gfm7175]

Which is why you surely support Trump misusing emergency powers, also. Like I said, you don't mind a dictator authoritarian as long as he/she is your dictator/authoritarian.

Nothing was "misused". Trump is acting within the confines of the US Constitution, hardly anything that a "dictator authoritarian" would do. Heck, if he WERE a "dictator authoritarian", then the government shutdown never would've happened as he would've just issued a "royal decree" that the government remain open. You must've been under a rock during the Autopen Regime.

 

[evince]

For one example: How else are leftists going to "stack the supreme court", as they are openly calling for?

Increasing the number of SCOTUS members has been done before idiot

 

[gfm7175]

Increasing the number of SCOTUS members has been done before idiot

Did I ever say that it wasn't, idiot?

 

[Diogenes]

For one example: How else are leftists going to "stack the supreme court", as they are openly calling for?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1987633685345014214

View: https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/1987633685345014214?s=20

https://twitter.com/x/status/1987896565793767526

View: https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1987896565793767526?s=20

 

[evince]

Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 1st United States Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary through the Judiciary Act of 1789. They decided that the Supreme Court, as the country's highest judicial tribunal, would be based in the nation's capital and would be composed of a chief justice and five associate justices. The act also divided the country into judicial districts, which were in turn organized into circuits. Justices were required to hold circuit court twice a year in their assigned judicial district.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#cite_note-SCinstitution-10"><span>[</span>10<span>]</span></a>[<em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources" title="Wikipedia:No original research"><span title="This claim needs references to reliable secondary sources. (February 2024)">non-primary source needed</span></a></em>]

 

[Diogenes]

Did I ever say that it wasn't, idiot?

 

[ZenMode]

Nothing was "misused". Trump is acting within the confines of the US Constitution, hardly anything that a "dictator authoritarian" would do. Heck, if he WERE a "dictator authoritarian", then the government shutdown never would've happened as he would've just issued a "royal decree" that the government remain open. You must've been under a rock during the Autopen Regime.

View attachment 64919

Pretending there are emergencies, when there aren't any, is misusing Presedential Emergency powers.

 

[gfm7175]

Pretending there are emergencies, when there aren't any, is misusing Presedential Emergency powers.

No emergency was ever "pretended", Zen...

 

[gfm7175]

Changing the filibuster (say, dropping it to 51 votes or killing it entirely) is the Senate voting to update its own internal playbook.

They can do that with a simple majority vote because the Constitution says the Senate gets to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings" (Article I, Section 5).

No Constitutional amendment is needed

The Constitution says you must have a Senate. It doesn't say the Senate must let one guy stall everything with endless talking. That rule is just something the Senate invented and can un-invent whenever 51 of them feel like it.

Bingo. And Democrats are going to un-invent that rule upon regaining control of the Senate, so Republicans should be smart, play to win, and un-invent it first.