Read on Twitter
A couple of things @juliehdavis told @mikiebarb about the filibuster on The Daily yesterday worth flagging.
The filibuster was framed as the "mechanism for stopping a senator from going on and on and on." Except that senators rarely go "on and on and on." Not anymore. 1/
The filibuster was framed as the "mechanism for stopping a senator from going on and on and on." Except that senators rarely go "on and on and on." Not anymore. 1/
Instead, the filibuster is a tool that allows a single senator--i.e., McConnell--to signal an objection, and suddenly the threshold for advancing a bill goes from 51 to 60. No "going on and on and on" required, as the empty Senate floor on @CSPAN-2 shows most of the time.
The Daily also said the filibuster is the "ultimate expression of what the Senate is about."
To the extent getting 60 votes is the only way to pass most bills, I suppose maybe that's right.
But the filibuster used to be very rare.
To the extent getting 60 votes is the only way to pass most bills, I suppose maybe that's right.
But the filibuster used to be very rare.
As to how the Senate is "supposed to be, they call it, the cooling saucer, where members are taking more time and deliberating more carefully." As @juliehdavis points out, the Senate has been paralyzed.
It hasn't been a cooling saucer—it's a deep freezer/graveyard.
It hasn't been a cooling saucer—it's a deep freezer/graveyard.
Also, is a chamber that is home to people like Senator Josh Hawley much of a cooling saucer? He lit Trump's match that incited an insurrection, then did the insurrectionists' bidding, and then yielded to the insurrectionists' demand to overturn the election. Cooling saucer?
The Daily said that the Dems' decision to abolish the filibuster on most nominations was "a pretty extreme measure, something that had never happened in the history of the Senate."
Wrong.
Cloture was lowered from 67 to 60 in 1975, and the nuclear option was a tactic.
Wrong.
Cloture was lowered from 67 to 60 in 1975, and the nuclear option was a tactic.
(Really, from 2/3 of senators present & voting to 3/5 of senators "duly chosen & sworn.")
The Senate then reconsidered its nuclear votes and reversed the precedent in 1975. But the nuke option was deployed during that rules fight then, even though the Senate voted to reverse the precedent when it went nuclear. More here: https://www.legislativeprocedure.com/blog/2019/3/8/fb2te1chy6ls0iyqw5tehw82es9pnw.
The Daily says the 2013 rule change "was viewed as a pretty extreme thing to do."
Actually, what McConnell did back then filibustering so many nominees was the extreme thing to do, which forced the Senate to act and nuke it for nominees.
How extreme it was at the time:
Actually, what McConnell did back then filibustering so many nominees was the extreme thing to do, which forced the Senate to act and nuke it for nominees.
How extreme it was at the time:
The Daily then says Democrats came "to regret" this after McConnell nuked it to confirm Justice Gorsuch.
Does anyone really think Mitch McConnell would have allowed the Democrats to filibuster Trump's nominee to the SCOTUS seat he stole?
Does anyone really think Mitch McConnell would have allowed the Democrats to filibuster Trump's nominee to the SCOTUS seat he stole?
