Schumer warns that the Senate will vote on changes to the chamber’s rules by Jan. 17 unless Republicans get out of the way on elections reform

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Comment:
Back in 2005 Schumer said that abolishing the filibuster would be a "doomsday for democracy"
Soooooo, now we can safely say that Chuck Schumer wants to end America's democracy so that he can ban Voter ID laws and ban Poll Watcher laws and require nation-wide mail-in ballots and bunch of other toxic crap that is in the HR1 bill.

The hypocrisy of Charles Schumer is staggering. And the desperation is so strong one can almost
smell it.

Democrats know they cannot win national power without weakening or erasing altogether laws that
provide for voting security...making sure that the people casting votes are actually legally qualified to vote.

Imagine that! Making sure people casting votes are legally qualified to do so!
We can infer from Schumer's threats and actions he is not in favor of such a thing
and what other guarantees would Schumer like to ban?

The legality of driver's licenses? Gun ownership? Citizenship, etc.?

 

[22lcidw]

We need 500 billion dollars of road and bridges easily. We got 110 billion out of 1.2 Trillion dollars. Understand the corruption yet!!!

I know what you are. People like me will be hired by your leadership heroes when you take total control. For if there are ten people and nine seats, there will be ten people and six seats with your insanity. And we will kill you for what you have done as you bitch.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Well, every time Republicans are in power, abortion will be illegal.

What a supremely stupid comment.

Republicans HAVE been in power. Abortions ARE NOT illegal either now or then.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Indeed. The founders intentionally made legislation difficult to pass, with the intent to ensure onlty the most important - and thus, widely supported - legislation would ever be enacted.

The founders had nothing to do with the filibuster, the founders made passing a bill in the Senate a simple majority vote. The rest was added way later.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The hypocrisy of Charles Schumer is staggering. And the desperation is so strong one can almost
smell it.

Democrats know they cannot win national power without weakening or erasing altogether laws that
provide for voting security...making sure that the people casting votes are actually legally qualified to vote.

Imagine that! Making sure people casting votes are legally qualified to do so!
We can infer from Schumer's threats and actions he is not in favor of such a thing
and what other guarantees would Schumer like to ban?

The legality of driver's licenses? Gun ownership? Citizenship, etc.?

They also require an ID for the Covid vaccination

 

[OKTexas]

Why ask him? Ask your cult leaders why they think these measures will suppress rhe vote. Then ask yourself why you support suppressing the vote. See if you can lie to yourself.

I support the integrity of the vote. I think people should have to prove citizenship and residence when they register and provide a verifiable ID when they cast their ballot. Why would you have a problem with that?

.

 

[task0778]

A few months back the Senate passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill, with votes from both sides to support it. They compromised and cooperated and got it done, and they did it to avoid a filibuster, which is the whole point of having a filibuster. Destroy the filibuster and that will never happen again except possibly in the direst of emergencies. Is that the way we want our gov't to work, basically a one-party rule like it is in the House? There's no cooperation or compromise there, the majority party in the House does whatever they want to appease their base and they couldn't care less about the rest of us. You want that in the Senate too? Totally shut out the other side on everything, no compunction at all to achieve any bipartisanship, do it our way or fuck you?

Okay, now let's talk about obstructionism, the other side of the coin. First of all, the 2 parties do have major philosophical and political differences. There's no way I and a lot of other people would want the democrats to be able to pass their Green New Deal with a simple majority in the Senate. Do you believe that bills with huge expenditures and far-reaching consequences should be passed with a simple majority? Once these things are done, it's hard to take the benefits away, right? IOW, there are some things that ought not to be passed without at least bipartisan support unless maybe the majority party already has 60 votes within their caucus. Should the democrats be able to pack the Supreme court with 4 or 5 new liberal judges of their choosing? Or admit DC and Puerto Rico as new states? IOW, whatever the fuck they want to do that would help them keep their majority?

For another thing, obstructionism, no matter who does it, buys time for the rest of us to understand WTF is going on. Do you like the idea of passing a bill to find out what's in it? I don't want to find out that I don't like the shit that is already signed into law. I see nothing wrong with at least slowing things down a little bit before rushing something through Congress. Obstructionism allows the senators to hear from their constituents and gauge the level of support for or against a particular bill. I call that a good thing. Take away the filibuster and what you have left is basically mob rule where in many cases passion rules the day.

 

[dblack]

We need to go in the opposite direction. 2/3's majority in both houses to pass laws. Simply majority to repeal laws.

 

[22lcidw]

But it does not do that, it just gives both sides an excuse for not doing what they said they were going to do.

Go back to it being an active event and no further Senate business can be done until the filibuster is over, then they would have a reason to compromise

If you have a rough 50/50 in Congress tell me where that is a mandate? In fact Repubs have been so Mayberry like that that Dems who are not that but Progressives have taken over the rules for decades. Progs will pass the BBB bill this year with Repubs yelling and screaming. And of course when elected will do nothing again. McCarthy who is a RINO woll just slow things down enough to make us accept it. Please run nasty people by Democracy. We are starting to get tired of this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A few months back the Senate passed a bipartisan infrastructure bill, with votes from both sides to support it. They compromised and cooperated and got it done, and they did it to avoid a filibuster, which is the whole point of having a filibuster.

And Biden got destroyed in the right and left wing press for compromising and not getting what he asked for.

The Senators from the GOP that voted it it were listed on this very site as traitors to be driven out of office.

Everyone claims they want compromise, yet when it happens it pisses everyone off

 

[task0778]

And Biden got destroyed in the right and left wing press for compromising and not getting what he asked for.

The Senators from the GOP that voted it it were listed on this very site as traitors to be driven out of office.

Everyone claims they want compromise, yet when it happens it pisses everyone off

So, what is your point? Filibusters are bad because somebody will be pissed off with the end result? IMHO, that's too fucking bad, the very nature of compromise is that nobody gets everything they wanted and that is called tough shit, baby. You cannot please everybody, right?

I'm sure that I'm missing your point here.

 

[dblack]

And Biden got destroyed in the right and left wing press for compromising and not getting what he asked for.

The Senators from the GOP that voted it it were listed on this very site as traitors to be driven out of office.

Everyone claims they want compromise, yet when it happens it pisses everyone off

I'm not advocating for compromise. The idea isn't to find a middle ground that no one likes. The idea behind consensus is to avoid doing things that are bitterly opposed by half the country. That's what's killing us. That's what ranked-choice voting addresses.

 

[percysunshine]

The Filibuster was meant to be used on rare occasions
It is now used on all legislation

Time to end it

I agree.

When Harry Reid nuked the Judicial filibuster, Trump got three new Supreme Court justices.

 

[22lcidw]

I agree.

When Harry Reid nuked the Judicial filibuster, Trump got three new Supreme Court justices.

Only if he got the polar opposites of the Prog judges.

 

[rightwinger]

I agree.

When Harry Reid nuked the Judicial filibuster, Trump got three new Supreme Court justices.

That is why we need to end it on all legislation

Majority vote

 

[percysunshine]

That is why we need to end it on all legislation

Majority vote

You always were a closet Kavanaugh fan.

 

[task0778]

I'm not advocating for compromise. The idea isn't to find a middle ground that no one likes. The idea behind consensus is to avoid doing things that are bitterly opposed by half the country. That's what's killing us. That's what ranked-choice voting addresses.

Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with what they do once they get elected, right? IOW, I'm not seeing ranked-choice voting as an answer to whether or not the Senate should be able to abolish the filibuster.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asserted Monday that he will force a vote on a measure to change the upper chamber’s rules by Jan. 17 in order to pass a sweeping election reform bill — a gambit that is certain to fail due to opposition by moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) to making such changes along party lines.

Schumer vows doomed Senate filibuster rule change vote by MLK Day

The letter marked Schumer’s strongest call to change the 60-vote legislative filibuster rule despite some reservations within the party.

nypost.com

Flashback: Schumer Called Eliminating Filibuster ‘A Doomsday for Democracy’

townhall.com

Democrat Chuck Schumer in 2005: Eliminating the filibuster would “be a doomsday for Democracy.”

The News Junkie's Archives Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TheNewsJunkiesArchives The News Junkie's Channels Support https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_but

www.nationandstate.com

Comment:
Back in 2005 Schumer said that abolishing the filibuster would be a "doomsday for democracy"
Soooooo, now we can safely say that Chuck Schumer wants to end America's democracy so that he can ban Voter ID laws and ban Poll Watcher laws and require nation-wide mail-in ballots and bunch of other toxic crap that is in the HR1 bill.

Repetition of the Infamous Polish Veto

Schumer's hypocrisy doesn't negate the fact that the filibuster is a childish and silly interruption of a rational and timely process of legislation. The majority must ban it instead of hoping to use it themselves when they are in the minority.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Some Democrats like Schumer will stop at nothing to get their voter fraud law passed. If the voter fraud law passes, this country is finished.

Suffer Not Undeserved Suffrage

It has already passed de facto. This union is finished.

 

[struth]

The Dems are willing to do this with their "voting" bill, because the bill as written, will allow them to have total federal control over elections, and they will be able to maintain power.

Chucky was right back in 2006, this will be a doomsday for democracy.....but they don't care, leftist never care about democracy