Skip to main content

View Diary: Why the partial elimination of the filibuster is a bad idea (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Be careful what you wish for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan
    So, there is some utility in killing the Legislative filibuster as well. Although, I think the Constitutional justification for doing so is weaker than for Executive appointments.
    There is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters.  Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.

    We still need the filibuster, because right now you could probably get a bipartisan majority to cut Social Security with the chained CPI, with only the threat of a filibuster to prevent it from becoming law.

    •  I doubt that's true. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton, happy camper, costello7

      It's an easy thing to come out in favor of chained CPI when you know it has no shot in hell of ever becoming law.

      And, most Republicans may not care about passing that. But, you can damn well bet every single Democrat in the Senate who votes for chained CPI are inviting a major primary challenge for slashing social security benefits.

    •  I think this is right. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NearlyNormal, Deep Texan, VClib
      because right now you could probably get a bipartisan majority to cut Social Security with the chained CPI, with only the threat of a filibuster to prevent it from becoming law.
      We'll see what happens with the budget negotiations.

      More importantly, I'm almost SURE you could get 51 votes right now in the Senate for something like Senator Landrieu's bill on the ACA.  I suspect all the red state Democrats (who are apparently very worried about what the ACA will do to their re-election prospects) would vote for it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site