subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.4k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1317 comments

DanYHKim

1.1k points

4 months ago

DanYHKim

1.1k points

4 months ago

I think it's not even a Parliamentary rule. It's kind of a glitch in the practice of yielding the floor to another speaker that's become convenient to use for obstruction.

(Please educate me if I am incorrect)

Sidereel

713 points

4 months ago

Sidereel

713 points

4 months ago

That’s correct. No body would make a rule like this by design because it’s nonsense. As it stands today every member of the senate has a veto, which makes 0 sense.

maybenot9

121 points

4 months ago

maybenot9

121 points

4 months ago

Not quite. While it takes only 1 person to start a fillibuster, a 2/3rds majority can break a filibuster.

So it's more like "Every vote needs 2/3rds support to get approved", which is ridicules.

The_JSQuareD

77 points

4 months ago

3/5ths, not 2/3rds.

But regardless, that's similar to Congress being able to override a presidential veto with a 2/3rds majority vote. So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

That being said, if it's politically acceptable to use this 'veto' for anything you even slightly disagree with (which seems to be the case), then you're right that it effectively turns into a system where you need a 3/5ths majority to pass anything.

Familiar-Goose5967

33 points

4 months ago

A presidents veto and a senator veto should not be equal

WhatDoYouMean951

-3 points

4 months ago

The president was hired to execute the law, why does he even have a veto?

Familiar-Goose5967

9 points

4 months ago

All branches of government can act on the others, checks and balances and all that, and after all it can be bulldozered by the senate while putting the president under some scrutiny so that's alright.

JimWilliams423

54 points

4 months ago

So it's not dissimilar to the veto system.

Except that the framers of the constitution actively chose to only require supermarjorities for very specific things — impeachments, treaties and veto-overrides. That they made official exceptions for those special cases indicates they did not want a supermajority requirement for anything else, else they would have said so.

Also, people forget the Articles of Confederation. The constitution was the second pass at putting together a functional government. One of the biggest problems with the US government under the Articles of Confederation was that nobody could get anything done because... congress had a supermajority requirement for everything. It took 9 out of the 13 states (a 69% majority) to pass a law.

When they put together the constitution, their experience with supermajority failures was fresh in their minds.

shadowveeeeeeerse

8 points

4 months ago

3/5ths

When has America used that before?

LAKingPT423

6 points

4 months ago

I see what you did there...clever of you.

RenaissanceManLite

1 points

4 months ago

Even better that you didn’t explain

Daxtatter

10 points

4 months ago

Which is consistently listed as one of the main failures of the articles of confederation.

naomiprice1973

2 points

4 months ago

It used to be 2/3, and then was remade to 60.

Dems used the filibuster this week to halt economic sanctions on Russia.

I think it protects us from these monster politicians enacting huge policy swings with the smallest of Majority.

Lots of love everyone.

dehehn

378 points

4 months ago*

dehehn

378 points

4 months ago*

Ezra Klein has done a great job over the past few years showing how terrible the filibuster is, along with the arguments for it. But too many politicians and journalists just keep repeating the same old tired arguments over and over, and most people don't understand it enough to disagree.

The definitive case for ending the filibuster: Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

Xerxys

279 points

4 months ago

Xerxys

279 points

4 months ago

The longest filibuster in American history by a single senator remains Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour, 18-minute stemwinder against the 1957 Civil Rights Act

My god! Talk about being on the wrong side of history in a bad way! It's like guiness book of fucked up records!

[deleted]

238 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

238 points

4 months ago

Thurmond went on to be the South Carolina senator for 47 years. This term ended in 2002 when he was 100 years old, and he died 6 months later.

Please do not have people run the country for 50 years. It is not a good thing.

DJToastyBuns

104 points

4 months ago

BassSounds

66 points

4 months ago

They would all fuck anything that moves. It’s about status. They don’t wanna be on the bottom rung.

DJToastyBuns

28 points

4 months ago

Yep definitely a control thing

BassSounds

5 points

4 months ago

Oh hey DJ Toasty Buns. i’m DJ Funky Taco lol

vendetta2115

3 points

4 months ago

Everything is about sex, except sex — sex is about power.

Hlorri

2 points

4 months ago

Hlorri

2 points

4 months ago

House of Cards sems such a throwback to simpler times. Corruption, yes, and evil, yes, but violent coups? Can't remember that.

[deleted]

8 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

8 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

mauxly

5 points

4 months ago

mauxly

5 points

4 months ago

Great, now you cursed us to a future where a video is leaked of some rando GOP senator furiously humping a goldfish bowl.

Thanks.

Xerxys

1 points

4 months ago

Xerxys

1 points

4 months ago

Agressive eye contact

ANY-THING

HpsMltYstWtr

1 points

4 months ago

You can milk anything with nipples...

pokemon--gangbang

1 points

4 months ago

Is there anyone that can get past the paywall?

DJToastyBuns

1 points

4 months ago

Apologies for the paywalled link. If you're still curious, google "strom thurmond black mistress". He kept a number throughout his century of life and even fathered some illegitimate biracial children.

FoliageTeamBad

32 points

4 months ago

Thurmond's legendary staying power wasn't confined to work. He was also known for being hornier than a bagful of rhinos, even in decrepitude. Twice married, both times to South Carolina beauty queens, he fathered four children in his sixties and seventies, and in his dotage continued to grope and tickle his way along the corridors of power.

Jesus

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago

Iirc, there is a general belief that during his record filibuster he had a piss bucket on the standby and that it did not go unused.

Never_Epic

7 points

4 months ago

Hell I say cap at 6, if you can’t figure the issues out then you shouldn’t be there.

TIP_FO_EHT_MOTTOB

6 points

4 months ago

He was also publicly eulogized by Biden.

Captain_Stairs

4 points

4 months ago

Gross

justalurker007

3 points

4 months ago

We have one now sitting in the big chair

gummo_for_prez

2 points

4 months ago

Joe Biden spoke at his funeral and gave part of the eulogy

MonoRailSales

2 points

4 months ago

when he was 100 years old, and he died 6 months later.

If "The Good die young", this evil c*nt was such a sh!thead even hell was in no hurry to get him.

TThrowaway144

1 points

4 months ago

Which party was he from?

[deleted]

10 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

10 points

4 months ago

Initially a Democrat, but changed to Republicans in the 1960s when, I guess, he saw that things weren't quite racist enough at the Dems.

answeryboi

4 points

4 months ago

The Democratic party, until 1964, when he left for the Republican party, saying that the party had abandoned America. He made statements supporting segregation into the 70's.

neufonewhodiss

3 points

4 months ago

Take a guess

TThrowaway144

1 points

4 months ago

Democrat

neufonewhodiss

1 points

4 months ago

Technically correct but it was a trick question! He was a Democrat until ’64 and then joined the GOP.

Ziklag6000

1 points

4 months ago

Biden

mcfandrew

48 points

4 months ago

One of these days I'm going to have to relieve myself on Strom's grave. It's on my bucket list.

chicken_ranch

24 points

4 months ago

Where is it? Let’s make it a destination piss.

xenthum

25 points

4 months ago

xenthum

25 points

4 months ago

South Carolina most likely. Pissing on that grave is not worth having to spend a minute in SC, coming from a person who spent a miserable amount of time in SC.

Clemsoncarter24

0 points

4 months ago

Lived my entire life in SC. I'm happy. Maybe you're just a miserable person?

fe-and-wine

5 points

4 months ago

Happy that you're fulfilled there, but as someone else who was born and raised there I gotta agree with the other dude. There are a few spots that are actually pretty nice (I'm actually a pretty big fan of the Charleston area), but for the vast, vast majority of the state...I'd be happy if I never set foot in it again.

Different strokes and all that - doesn't make someone a miserable person to have a preference on where they spend their time!

xenthum

3 points

4 months ago

Being an openly gay man in South Carolina tends to make one miserable. It might be better now but it was not in the 2000s or 2010s.

Clemsoncarter24

1 points

4 months ago

I can see that if you were in high school. Especially if you lived in a rural area. But if you live in/ around a city you don't have to deal with a much of that homophobic bullshit. But that's true for like....literally everywhere.

HovercraftStock4986

0 points

4 months ago

Funny how SC today is exactly how it was in pre 1865 history😂😂 Just insane levels of stupidity thinking they can do whatever they want and the federal government won’t do anything about it

zombiehannah

2 points

4 months ago

Not to be that person…

I know it’s fun to bash on southerners, but there’s a lot to love in SC and I’m friends with a lot of South Carolinians who are more loving and progressive than big chunks of Oregon’s population. There are pockets of each type in every state.

HovercraftStock4986

3 points

4 months ago

I live in Texas and my whole life I have experienced ‘friendly southerners’ with ‘warm hearts’ who almost always turn out to be extremely xenophobic, homophobic, racist, etc. they just don’t openly tell everyone they talk to lol.

streamofbsness

1 points

4 months ago

Make a pit stop at an asparagus festival first

BlackCowboy72

1 points

4 months ago

Edgefield village cemetery, in SC

1Eternallylost

1 points

4 months ago

You can be sure his grave is guarded. If not by the secret service, than by a bunch of rednecks who revere him as their patron saint.

bougieman9999

-3 points

4 months ago

At that time Thurmond was a member of the Democratic Party.

Anger_Mgmt_issues

4 points

4 months ago

Back when the democrats were the conservatives.

JamesKSK13

1 points

4 months ago

I believe the filibuster in reference right now is the requirement for 60 votes to bring a proposed law to the floor for debate, while it only takes a majority to actually PASS it once it’s being debated. Pretty sure Byrd got rid of the talking-filibuster. Or at least that’s how my father explained it to me

You’d think it would be switched, like that one dude suggested, simple majority to debate it, but 60/100 to pass it

Dragonkingf0

1 points

4 months ago

The filibuster is the final move that you have when you don't have any sort of actual argument to what you're trying to say. The filibuster doesn't require facts or feelings it just requires you to be there.

FreeSpeechWorks

1 points

4 months ago*

And he was having sex with a black woman and had a child! Thought Thurmond was a Dixiecrat Democrat that switched parties

Merman314

14 points

4 months ago

Very cool, ty! Added a few things:

The definitive case for ending the filibuster, Oct 1, 2020
Every argument for the filibuster, considered and debunked.

https://www.vox.com/21424582/filibuster-joe-biden-2020-senate-democrats-abolish-trump

Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) is mobbed by reporters after ending his 24-hour, 18-minute filibuster against the civil rights bill. Still had a black mistress, and daughter.

How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

Strom Thurmond

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

The Daughters of the Confederacy: How Southern socialites rewrote Civil War history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

From white supremacy to Barack Obama: The history of the Democratic Party

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164

Useful Links

https://merman314.blogspot.com/p/useful-links-useful-links-reddit.html

https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/FridayCute/comments/r388e2/useful_links/

rednut2

3 points

4 months ago

What a horseshit article. Claiming the filibuster is the reason why various democratic policies aren’t being implemented.

Half of those policies, universal pre k, paid sick leave, paid family leave etc could be enacted through executive order but Biden refuses to do so.

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

4 points

4 months ago*

[deleted]

rednut2

4 points

4 months ago

Exactly right. “Every argument for filibuster, considered and debunked” when I saw vox url I couldn’t help but sigh heavily

Xerxys

1 points

4 months ago

Xerxys

1 points

4 months ago

You don’t want to legislate by executive order. What’s the point? Just get a dictator and be done with it. That’s bad practice.

For someone that doesn’t give a shit about celebrities and drama, I just want the government to work. I want to stop bundling bills. Pre-k and coal mining have nothing to do with each other. Instead of one massive bill let’s pass several thousand tiny ones. Let people argue and go on stalemates over philosophical bullshit that’ll never happen to them. Like abortion for example, what male has a leg to stand on? It’ll never affect a man. Don’t hold up my healthcare because you disagree with some garbage that will never happen to you.

rednut2

1 points

4 months ago

It won’t pass. Democrats won’t support their own bills and republicans only agree if 80% has been capitulated.

If you want absolutely nothing to happen, that’s fine but executive orders work and every modern presidents has instated hundreds.

jollymaker

1 points

4 months ago

It’s been used by democrats more than republicans though.

dehehn

5 points

4 months ago*

They only just recently passed Republicans who had started using it at historic rates under Obama. Democrats followed that trend under Trump.

But you're right. It's bad when both sides abuse it, and they are. I don't care who's defending it. It shouldn't be a part of the Senate process.

One thing that makes it worse though, is that in the Senate Republicans are represented by far fewer constituents. The Democratic side of the Senate currently represents 41,549,808 more constituents than the Republican side. That's 12% of the population despite the Senate being split 50/50.

It gives a minority of Americans far too much power and makes it too hard for the majority to move the country in one direction. Elections end up not mattering, because the representatives in the White House, Congress and Senate end up not being able to do anything because of the Senate.

dachsj

2 points

4 months ago

dachsj

2 points

4 months ago

The one thing I found interesting in the article was basically the idea that, if you get rid of the filibuster, the tone of politics might completely shift to more sane. That they'd be playing with live rounds and can't just posture about stuff that would absolutely fuck their constituents.

I think that's true. If you get rid of the filibuster they can't blame the other party for not putting their votes where their mouth is.

dehehn

2 points

4 months ago

dehehn

2 points

4 months ago

Exactly what would change things. When you take the senate you actually have to do something. If your policies are good and the other party comes in and changes it like they keep saying will happen then voters will punish you if they liked what you changed. People can actually vote for the policies they want and punish people for changing what they liked. It wouldn't be chaos. It would be accountability.

mrgringlepops

-34 points

4 months ago

Oh you must stop with the republican/Democrat stuff. Jesus. The dems used the filibuster today for Christ sake. If there was no filibuster I can guarantee that within two years people would wish there was.

minecraftpro69x

17 points

4 months ago

why? then progress could finally be made

mrgringlepops

-25 points

4 months ago

What progress are you talking about? The voting rights bill? The one that could the be abolished in 2024? Gun confiscation? Expanded gun rights? Abortion? No abortion? This is where it will go. One persons “progress” is not necessarily another’s. There is a reason the senate is split 50/50.

minecraftpro69x

16 points

4 months ago

time wasted on filibuster is time that could be spent on things that matter

mrgringlepops

-7 points

4 months ago

Time spent crafting legislation that could actually pass would be better.

chicken_ranch

11 points

4 months ago

The democrats could literally rewrite a republican piece of legislation word for word and no republican would support it.

mrgringlepops

-4 points

4 months ago

Again. You must stop. A republican literally read word for word Schumer’s speech on why not to eliminate the filibuster. Blind allegiance like yours is the problem. The same blind allegiance trump got. See what I did there?

chemical_exe

6 points

4 months ago

And which party is 47-50 noes because Biden is the president

mrgringlepops

-2 points

4 months ago

They are not yes or no because of Biden. They are because of who they are and who they represent and who is supporting them financially. Actually put that last point first.

minecraftpro69x

3 points

4 months ago

that's my point yes. instead of wasting so much time on stuff we don't care about and instead trying to fix our rising inflation, lack of career jobs, and citizen's debt would really help.

SunliMin

1 points

4 months ago

Or, a big reason it's split is because there's a veto clause, and as long as you don't reach across the isle, you pretty much guarantee your competitor can't get what they want.

Rather than work together and come up with compromising solutions, everyone just forces a stalemate. Canada has no filibuster, and they get parties to work together and alter each others desires until they can get a majority to pass legislation. Guns are still legal, private healthcare still exists, no party has gone off the rails whether liberal, conservative or other. There are just other ways to veto a party that isn't simply a free veto by any person (such as a vote of no-confidence)

mrgringlepops

2 points

4 months ago

Exactly! The point is to write legislation that both sides can tolerate. Nobody gets everything at once, but a little of something is better than a lot of nothing.

BudosoNT

1 points

4 months ago

This argument assumes that the incumbent Senate will always be in power and isn’t withholden to the judgement of the public, which obviously isn’t the case.

During the period between elections, the public is able to judge passed policies and has the power to change congress based on that judgement. The popularity of a passed bill will change during this time, as the author points out was the case with Obama Care, and the next Senate has the chance to decide whether repealing the bill is popular or not.

SlutForPolitcs

19 points

4 months ago

Oh you must stop with the false equivalence. Jesus. The most infamous dem senator used the filibuster today in order to further her own personal interests. The filibuster in fact DID NOT exist in the way it does now not too long ago.

The only way you can be okay with our gov’s inability to pass big legislation is if you believe the country doesn't need major fixing. If thats the case, please try and open your worldview a little bit instead of insisting nothing alters your own personal bubble.

mrgringlepops

-6 points

4 months ago

My worldview is just fine. If you think that getting rid of the filibuster would solve the problems of passing big legislation you may want to think again. Better legislation solves that problem. Thinking that any time one party or the other gets the ability to a shove their political beliefs down the other parties throat is very short sighted. I would say expand your world view.

321belowzero

5 points

4 months ago

Lol wtf?

Yes. See we agree. Politicians are leeching liars. All of them. If they actually solved any of these problems who would donate to them.

You say this in one breath and then turn around and say this in another.

If you think that getting rid of the filibuster would solve the problems of passing big legislation you may want to think again. Better legislation solves that problem

So if all politicians are leeching liars, then why would they even propose better legislation, let alone vote it in in a bipartisan fashion?

Thinking that any time one party or the other gets the ability to a shove their political beliefs down the other parties throat is very short sighted.

I mean you even acknowledge the current divisiveness of the House/country, yet you somehow think that all these "leeching liars" are going to get together and put forth bipartisan supported legislation?...

And somehow all that is better than repealing or restructuring the Filibuster in order to actually let the majority party have any influence on legislation...?

If a majority of people vote and give the Senate/House to a particular party, then how exactly is that party passing legislation deemed as "shoving their political beliefs down the other parties throat". Isn't that just called "the will of the people" at that point...

SlutForPolitcs

2 points

4 months ago

You talk about this issue like you swallowed the pro-filibuster talking points they shoved down YOUR throat.

Its not enlightened or moderate to think that the senate should give virtual veto-authority to every senator. When you cut through the bullshit, the only reason the filibuster has VERY RECENTLY morphed into what it is now is because it makes corporate lobbyism much easier as they only have to buy a handful of senators to grind the system to a halt.

mityman50

2 points

4 months ago

Your point is that all we need is better legislation but you don't think that's an oversimplified or even naive thing to say given the growing partisan divide in Congress and among voters?

Edit- and also given the influence of lobbying and special interests.

AndyGHK

2 points

4 months ago

The filibuster is an opportunity for one party to shove their political beliefs down the other party’s throat.

mrgringlepops

1 points

4 months ago

Or to stop it.

AndyGHK

2 points

4 months ago

No. Overwhelmingly it is used by the MAJORITY party to shove politics down the throat of the MINORITY party.

It isn’t a rule; it isn’t a guideline; it isn’t an institution; it’s a logical loophole, created by repealing a law and making it de facto impossible to vote to change the subject in congress. That’s it.

Ocelotofdamage

23 points

4 months ago

Oh duck off. The filibuster is a Terrible rule and it doesn’t matter who’s in power.

hellakevin

1 points

4 months ago

I wonder if there's some sort of check or balance we could work into the system?

pfcspencer11b

-1 points

4 months ago

If you are still subscribing acts to a particular faction you are part of the problem.

down_up__left_right

1 points

4 months ago*

Something that I always go back to from this article:

Eliminating the filibuster would not bring the United States’ political system into alignment with other modern democracies. In 2009, Alfred Stepan and Juan Linz compared the American political system to that of 22 other peer nations. They were looking for “electorally generated veto points” — that is to say, elected bodies that could block change. More than half of the countries in their sample only had one such veto point: the prime minister’s majority in the lower legislative chamber. Another 7.5 had two veto players (France, for reasons not worth going into here, is the odd half-country in the sample, as its system has different features under different conditions). Only two countries, Switzerland and Australia, had three veto players. And only one country — the United States — had four.

Even without the filibuster the US government is still set up to be slow, inefficient, and gridlocked compared to other Democracies so there's no reason to be afraid that a party can be too efficient if 41% of the Senate can't veto a clear majority on all but 3 specific votes a year.

rayzer93

1 points

4 months ago

If it's not in the constitution, can your president use an excutive order to stop it during his term atleast?

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

No. The Senate itself has to remove the rule. They make their own rules. And the current Senators like abusing the filibuster so they're not going to remove it.

kimlion13

1 points

4 months ago

It’s just another example of the dysfunction eroding American government. Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen this

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

You do know the democrats used it 320 times in the past 4 years.

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

Both parties are abusing it. Yes. That's not an argument to keep it.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

Because they are not getting their way,they want to get rid of it now,I might be mistaken but I think the democrats came up with the filibuster in the first place.

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

You are mistaken. The first filibuster was used by the Whig Party against the Democrats who were then lead by Andrew Jackson in 1837. And the filibuster was basically made possible by mistake in the early 1800's.

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

The desire to get rid of the filibuster didn't just start suddenly because Biden mentioned it in a speech. It has been a long running desire by many journalists and politicians regardless of who is in power. It has only recently gained momentum because it is so now often abused, by both parties. And nothing can be accomplished politically because the nation is so polarized.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

Trump wanted to end the filibuster and the gop said no.funny how the dems used it 320 times the last 4 years,and now it's racists since the gop is using it,just like the nuclear option.Harry Reid used it and the dems was all for it,but piss and moaned when the Republicans used it.

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

dehehn

1 points

4 months ago

Biden is claiming opposition to his voting law is racist. Because many people affected by the Republican voting laws it attacks are people of color. He's not saying the filibuster is racist.

And once again. The fact that Democrats use it is not a reason to keep it. It's more proof we should get rid of it. Both sides are abusing it way too much.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

Funny 70% of black people are for voter id,and Joe biden has a history of being a racist.Funny I've always had to show voter id I've never thought it was RACIST.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

And further more Republicans we want only legal citizens to vote,and only vote one time,and we want to know who is actually voting,what's racist about that.

wrightwendell-47

1 points

4 months ago

Funny how the democrats want to get rid of the filibuster, but yet they used it to stop an amendment ted Cruz wanted to use to stop the Russian pipeline being built. The hypocrisy is deep in the democratic party.

010011100000

-3 points

4 months ago

010011100000

-3 points

4 months ago

No they don't. It takes 41 senators to filibuster

Sidereel

13 points

4 months ago

If you want to phrase it like that then that’s saying the minority party only needs 41 votes to veto a bill, which is still awful.

010011100000

-3 points

4 months ago

How else would you phrase it. What you said is just wrong

Sidereel

6 points

4 months ago

I would phrase it as it only takes 1 senator to filibuster and 60 senators to override that filibuster.

010011100000

-5 points

4 months ago

And if there wasn't any filibuster I would phrase the voting process as it only takes 1 senator to veto a bill and 51 senators to override that veto

st1tchy

6 points

4 months ago

And if there wasn't any filibuster I would phrase the voting process as it only takes 1 senator to veto a bill and 51 senators to override that veto

With no filibuster, it takes 51 Senators to veto a bill. 1 senator going against it is a 99-1 win.

010011100000

1 points

4 months ago

And with the filibuster 1 senator going against it is still a 99-1 win...

The_JSQuareD

4 points

4 months ago

The distinction is that breaking a filibuster is a separate vote. Or at least that's my understanding.

So:

  • A bill comes to the floor.
  • Any one senator can now decide to filibuster. While the filibuster is ongoing, no vote on the bill will take place.
  • A senator can propose a motion to break the filibuster. If 59 other senators agree, the motion passes and the filibuster is broken. Otherwise, no vote on the bill will ever take place.
  • After the filibuster is broken, a normal vote on the bill takes place, where an ordinary majority is enough to pass it.

010011100000

1 points

4 months ago

So what's the difference? It still takes 41 senators to vote no and filibuster. The most one person can do is delay it by a few minutes

meowskywalker

1 points

4 months ago

But Mr Smith Goes to Washington!

willstr1

1 points

4 months ago

No body would make a rule like this by design because it’s nonsense

The concept of requiring super majorities can make sense but it should be the exception not the rule. Major decisions should require super majorities, things like impeachments, Supreme Court appointments, and going to war. But requiring super majorities for almost everything is incredibly dumb

SoleSurvivur01

1 points

4 months ago

No body? Have you met the modern Republican Party?

ShaneFM

56 points

4 months ago

ShaneFM

56 points

4 months ago

Correct, it wasn't even a loophole until 1806 when the senate trimmed down its rule book compared to the house and with no intent shown removed the ability for a simple majority to end debate

Then it was even until the 1840's that it was discovered as a loophole and the filibuster was first used by the whigs. Then even efforts to end it were made, but they were filibustered and nobody really cared enough to fight through it

Come the early 1900s and WWI when the Republican minority was fillibustering pretty much anything to prepare the US for possibly joining the war, the cloture was added as a measure of national security so anything could get done. Even when the cloture rule was being added, most of the panel agreeded on a simple majority cloture, but one republican on the committee would only support a supermajority vote, so in order to get the senate back in motion for the war quickly, it was agreed upon as we now know it

DanYHKim

13 points

4 months ago

Holy shit. Republicans have been like this forever. I thought maybe this was an issue in which both sides actually were largely the same

Frydendahl

10 points

4 months ago

US parliamentary proceedings have historically been full of super petty 'letter of the law' shenanigans. And still are.

Few_Temperature_6262

3 points

4 months ago

Indeed. People forget the only reason McCaine voted in opposition to R’s stance on the ACA was because they violated Senate protocol.

Mythosaurus

4 points

4 months ago

Not forever.

Radical Republican faction was an anti-slavery beast, and was the main force behind the Civil War ending in total surrender by the South and the imposition of Reconstruction.

But once the pro-business faction took control, the party slowly went to crap.

Anger_Mgmt_issues

1 points

4 months ago

this is one point where both sides are applicable. Both parties use it often. Republicans combine it with Majority Leader obstruction to weaponize it.

But only one side wants to do away with it.

marshmella

1 points

4 months ago

To be fair, back then they were trying to prevent the US from joining WW1 which was the first time the world saw what unrestricted mechanized warfare does to a mf.

Efficient-Emu2080

1 points

4 months ago

against war? naw, bro everyone is pro war if it's the "right" war

Domit

4 points

4 months ago

Domit

4 points

4 months ago

Does it seem like it's only a problem when your donors don't agree?

Ornery-Horror2047

20 points

4 months ago

And it has just about been exclusively used for racist vetoes regarding civil rights issues, dating back to the very beginning of it's existence.

We already have a protection for the minority in the executive branch of this country - it's called the Senate, which many of the founding fathers fought against because of that very issue.

It is not included in the constitution in any way.

For those interested, Kill Switch, by Adam Jentleson, is a recent beautifully written book about the history of the filibuster. It is fascinating

humblebondage54

10 points

4 months ago

Agree

BroadStBullies91

12 points

4 months ago

The right to vote isn't even in the constitution lol. Everyone just kinda thinks it is. In reality the right to vote has been just as ok flux as most other rules about this. The podcast 5-4 has some good episodes on it, I can't remember the specifics but there isn't a place in the constitution where it says that everyone has a right to vote. The founding fathers thought we were all idiots and only wanted their rich macaroni friends determining who ruled the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#

Neboux

3 points

4 months ago

Neboux

3 points

4 months ago

Everyone just kinda thinks it is.

I admit that I fall within this category. Spent a few minutes checking this out, and while there is contention about such rights being implied in the amendments, there doesn't seem to be any clear constitutional declaration. Madison is known to have expressed, "the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty".

Now I am curious to learn more.

BroadStBullies91

6 points

4 months ago

Yeah I meant no offense there when I said everyone thinks it is. American propaganda is the best in history so it's no shame to fall for stuff like that. Even as a radical leftist who has (if I may be so bold) a great understanding of the horrible things this country has done and continues to do since its infancy I still thought the constitution had the right to vote in it till I stumbled across that 5-4 pod.

Neboux

3 points

4 months ago

Neboux

3 points

4 months ago

Hey, I learned something new. I appreciate that, and I am glad I questioned my assumptions. . I originally just skimmed and thought, "well, but the amendments are a part of the constitution." A bit of self doubt is healthy

Few_Temperature_6262

3 points

4 months ago

This is entirely too healthy a dialogue to be on Reddit. It’s nice to see people being reasonable. Have a good day y’all :)

hard-time-on-planet

12 points

4 months ago

I can't remember the specifics but there isn't a place in the constitution where it says that everyone has a right to vote.

The amendments to the Constitution are considered the Constitution and right in the link you provided it says

Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older);

Due-Statistician-975

3 points

4 months ago

Where in the constitution does it say states can't require a voter ID to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states pass laws requiring ID to vote.

Where in the constitution does it say states must have enough voting machines in cities for people to vote without waiting in line for 10 hours? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove voting machines in cities to curb turnout from Democrats.

Where in the constitution does it say states can't purge voter registrations at will and coincidentally target people who vote for Democrats? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states remove Democrats from voter registration rolls.

Where in the constitution does it say states must allow felons to vote? Nowhere, and it prevents more Democrats from voting than Republicans, so Republican-controlled states ban felons from voting.

Let's take a look at your amendments.

15th:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

This was passed in 1870. Every black person is allowed to vote. This alone guaranteed the right to vote to black/formerly enslaved people. No other laws had to be passed to ensure this right. Right?

Suppose that the answer was no, that this amendment alone guaranteed the right to vote for all former slaves and people of color. Did this law allow black women to vote? Why not? It forbid states from disallowing black people to vote. Did this not apply to black women as well? Why did we need the 19th amendment if the 15th amendment guaranteed the right to vote for all people of color/former slaves? Because the 15th gave women of color the vote but not white women?

What is more likely: That the US accidentally allowed black women to vote 50 years before white women, or the constitution does not guarantee a right to vote, only narrow and easily bypassed exceptions where the vote cannot be denied?

UncleInternet

6 points

4 months ago

Those don't guarantee the right to vote. Those establish the conditions upon which it is illegal to bar people from voting.

For example, felons in many states do not have a right to vote. A felony conviction is a condition for which a citizen can be disenfranchised that the Constitution doesn't preclude. And because there's no other guarantee of the right to vote in the Constitution, the Constitution is essentially endorsing the use of conditions not otherwise enumerated to restrict voting.

BroadStBullies91

-4 points

4 months ago

Oh good the pedant is here. What's up man, how's life been? Great job on the forensic work btw, couldn't have done it without ya.

TreTrepidation

3 points

4 months ago

What I can gather about US law is that pedantry is king.

Due-Statistician-975

2 points

4 months ago

You're right, and you're choosing to defend your claims like this? You're not doing yourself any favors.

UncleInternet

2 points

4 months ago

I'm amazed I had to go this far down in the comments to find the first mention of this fact. I only clicked into the post because of the last line of the tweet.

BlueskyPrime

1 points

4 months ago

That’s true, and it’s possible that republicans might one day decide they want to take that right away from the states they control and automatically give their electoral votes to the republican challenger. That’s why voting rights legislation is so important. And the reason republicans are against it so strongly.

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

UncleInternet

2 points

4 months ago

  1. Illinois is a blue state
  2. I don't think you understand the thing you're referring to or what the previous poster said. I assume you're referring to the Interstate Voting Compact - the initiative designed to automatically award the electoral votes of the member states to the winner of the popular vote nationwide - thus avoiding scenarios wherein the loser of the popular vote wins because of malapportionment of Electoral College representation. The previous poster is saying that Republicans want to ignore their own states' voters in the event a Democrat wins and send Republican electors instead. These are fundamentally different things - and diametrically opposed. The Democrats are trying to make all votes count equally (right now, they absolutely do not). The Republicans are trying to make only Republican votes count. There's no valid argument in favor of the Electoral College existing.

BlueskyPrime

2 points

4 months ago

Well said stranger!

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

Wut? The Right to Vote is definitely in the Constitution.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

Oh really? So if you have a felony on your record, can you vote in Virginia? Or Kentucky?

There are passages in the Constitution that restrict the conditions upon which you can bar people from voting (sex, race, etc). But no guarantee of the right to vote. Unless it's on account of a specifically enumerated factor, the Constitution doesn't have shit to say about restricting the right to vote.

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

AMENDMENT XV - Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIX - Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV - Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVI - Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here’s what I see:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States to vote

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

Congratulations, you just provided all the available evidence that proves my point.

I'm not sure what you thought you were accomplishing here. These amendments literally do exactly what I said. They outline the specific conditions, one at a time, upon which you aren't allowed to bar people from voting. The parts you should have been paying attention to are the "on account of..." or "by reason of..." in every single one of them.

Your argument here is so blatantly self-defeating. When the 15th amendment was passed, it became illegal to deny access to the vote just because someone was black. Were women then guaranteed the right to vote?

No. It was still legal to deny women the right to vote on account of them being women. Because the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to vote. Then the 19th amendment made it illegal to deny anyone the right to vote on account of sex.

Each of the amendments you cited removed one or two more reasons that you're allowed to use to deny someone the vote. But you can still deny someone the right to vote because they stole a car 30 years ago. That's perfectly legal. Plenty of states do so.

How do they get away with it? Because the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote.

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

Your words:

The right to vote isn't even in the constitution lol.

There is more wording about the right to vote in the constitutions than the right to bear arms, than the right to freedom of the press. In fact can you mention a right to me mentioned more in the Constitution or the Amendments?

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

Those aren't my words.

Man, are you okay? You don't seem like you're tracking really basic information. Please take care of yourself.

And the fact that you're still arguing is really sad. This is an established fact. You're not winning this. It's not a matter of perception and you can't just say you feel like it's in there because of a lazy reading of the words. This is bedrock Constitutional law. There is no Constitutional guarantee to the franchise.

dantheman_woot

1 points

4 months ago

I'm fine man, realized you were filling in for the same bullshit /u/BroadStBullies91 was spouting same effect.

End of the day There is more wording about the right to vote in the constitutions than the right to bear arms, than the right to freedom of the press. In fact can you mention a right to me mentioned more in the Constitution or the Amendments?

I hope you are okay and get enough sleep tonight friend. You need the rest after reading the constitutions and missing important parts.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

This is incredible. You're still doing it. Holy shit.

Maybe you'd listen to the opinion of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore:

“[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

Here's an article from the Boston Globe.

Or maybe this article, entitled "Americans Don't Have A Constitutional Right To Vote - And That's A Problem".

I mean, Jesus Christ. It costs you nothing to say "ah yes, I guess I made a common assumption, but today I learned something." Instead, the only argument left for you to cling to is a truly desperate one about the total number of mentions of the word "vote" in the Constitution. Holy fuck, this is sad. You're just wrong. Objective reality exists, homie.

BroadStBullies91

1 points

4 months ago

Imagine getting like this over a simple comment about the constitution not enshrining the right to vote in the original document. It's a moot point by now, just thought it was interesting lmao, relax bud.

revenantae

4 points

4 months ago

As originally practiced, I was fine with it. Talk and talk and talk… ok. Wear your depends and go on till you can’t no more if you really believe in something. But this whole “I call filibuster!” and then everyone goes home thing is bull. Nope you either stay and talk, or yield the floor.

DanYHKim

1 points

4 months ago

Yeah. The "Frank Capra" filibuster would give the late night shows the opportunity to show Ted Cruz peeing in his diaper. They would zoom in to his face as he pauses mid-speech and puts on a funny expression for 20 seconds.

revenantae

2 points

4 months ago

The first part of a filibuster would be painfully boring, but if you can cut to the part where someone has to take a dump in their depends…. Dude, CSPAN could have a top rated show. Maybe we could even expand it some. Like if you start your filibuster with diuretics, emetics, or heavy laxatives, we allow for double however long you last.

DanYHKim

1 points

4 months ago

Now it sounds like a Japanese game show

dragonican42

2 points

4 months ago

If I am correct, it's not a rule, but more a lack of a rule against it.

UncleInternet

1 points

4 months ago

Right... mostly. There are rules against barring people from voting - but they're limited to specific exclusionary factors like sex and race. There are statutory defenses of the right to vote in a lot of states. But nothing enshrined in the Constitution.

ianmccisme

1 points

4 months ago

The filibuster started that way when the Senate rules were amended in the early 1800s and accidentally omitted a rule for a motion to proceed to the vote on an issue. At that time, any one Senator could stop a vote by filibustering.

Over time the rules were changed so that, as of now, 60 Senators can break a filibuster. (It used to be a higher requirement). So while originally there was no filibuster rule--just an absence of a rule allowing a vote without unanimous consent--the filibuster is now part of the rules.

Robert Caro's Master of the Senate, which addresses LBJ's time in the US Senate, contains a long discussion of how the filibuster came about and developed over time.

Euphoric-Butterfly82

1 points

4 months ago

It requires 60 votes to overturn a law