I knew there was a reason I liked Joe Manchin! 
Well, uh, seeing as how that particular reform was his idea, I’m guessing he’s already on board.
Beforehand earlier this year he said he would not get rid of the filibuster. He now is saying he is open to changes. I don’t think it is his particular idea though.
Being opposed to getting rid of it and being willing to make it a little harder is a completely reasonable and consistent take on the filibuster. And the right take, too.
Go Joe!
As noted in the article, manchin cosponsored a similar (doomed) bill in 2011.
1 Like
ah ok.
I didn’t think he had any say in it…
I thought it was Trump who didn’t understand the way that the government worked.
Would do? Look at the Supreme Court.
1 Like
Among many, many, many other things - but he doesn’t have a monopoly on that one.
But he’s the Big Guy.
Bumping in honor of the looming debt ceiling.
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action.
The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.”
Talk less, smile more, imo.
I just want to make it so they actually have to keep talking for hours on end in order to filibuster. This whole “we are filibustering because we say so” is stupid.
8 Likes
So is the formality of gaveling a congressional session in and then immediately out to prevent recess appointments. Both parties have weaponized the procedural aspects entirely too much. Goes back to the whole gerrymandering/ self-sorting issue and seeing the other party members as evil/enemy rather than a person I happen to disagree with.
6 Likes
Well said.
Lol kilibuster
Imo, it was always completely artificial, so it makes sense that they can change it to be whatever they want.
They could just as easily make a rule that says “no laws can be passed if someone is standing in their head”.
And they could reasonably change that to say “no laws can be passed”.
This was also discussed by the framers, though they had no idea what to do about it I guess.
Filibuster in Nebraska alive and working old school:
I have no problem whatsoever with that type of filibuster. Good for her.