you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 years ago (4 children)

But doesn't need 2/3rds to remove, only majority. Which then gets back to the "pseudo" dems that appear anything it gets close to having progressive legislation passed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Removing the filibuster is a nuclear option that will ensure Republicans will be unable to be stopped next time they're in power. It's a stupid idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I disagree, republicans don't let the filibuster stop them when they want to do something.

    They can still pass their tax cuts because of reconciliation and they immediately changed the rules to lock in the supreme Court.

    Classic example of Democrats pretending the other side has a respect for rules and tradition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And we were able to pass Build Back Better with reconciliation. The filibuster hampers both sides, and removing it is a terrible, dangerous idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I actually disagree. Removing it is a democratic idea. We already have 2 houses of Congress which must agree to pass legislation and the president must sign it unless Congress can muster a supermajority.

    Any voter has had 4 chances in the ballot box to represent their interest, we do not need to set artificially higher standards to prevent legislation from passing.

    If voters sow the wind by electing lawmakers that support reckless or harmful policy, then voters should reap the whirlwind that results.

  • source
  • parent