Comment on Why Didn't Democrats Do More When They Controlled Both Houses of Legislature, The White House, and The Supreme Court During Obama's First Term?

• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?

  Oh no they didn’t. They went along with them.

  source

  • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?

    Oh no they didn’t. They went along with them.

    What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.

    When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post

    source

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Crickets from the peanut gallery🤣

      source
• SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Right, which is why I’ve been saying that the Democrats should restore the filibuster. What they have now is not a filibuster, in practice, it’s more akin to an administrative hold. One Senator indicates an intent to filibuster via email, and they move on to other business.

  Make 'em do it. Pick a popular issue, and lean into it. Make the Republicans actually stand up there at the podium and talk for hours. Get them on camera on the news every night as obstructionists, blocking the will of the people. Yes, it will waste Senate session time; that’s a perfect opportunity for all of the Democrats to roast them non-stop to reporters. It’ll be painful for a while, but at least has a chance of breaking the log jam. (And if the GQP doesn’t take the bait, hey, popular thing gets passed!)

  source

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Filibustering is dumb and it shouldn’t exist - if we want the ability for a narrow minority to block law making we should just increase the threshold to pass laws - we shouldn’t allow a weird procedural rule to block discussion of a law whether through talking a long time or just doing so by email.

    source
• daltotron@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Couldn’t the republicans just do the same thing and remove it when they get a 51% majority

  source

  • notnotmike@programming.dev ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I would imagine its a case of mutually assured destruction. Neither wants to repeal it because they know once they do, they open up Pandora’s box and Congress will be even more of a disaster than it currently is

    source