Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Shawn M. Williams's avatar

Didn’t the filibuster save ACA (aka Obamacare)? There’s been an argument for the speaking filibuster. What if we strengthened that rule to require the speaking must be on topic, non-repetitive and continuous.

By avoiding another rendition of Green Eggs and Ham, keep Senators on the legislative topic. If there’s opposition, require them to speak in opposition. Better yet, require actual debate. If anyone breaks the rules, fine the hell out of them.

If you keep Senators on the floor and eliminate their nights and weekends, we just may get substantive or reasonably negotiated legislation passed.

I agree we need to get past the petty bomb we have in the filibuster today. Nothing says we can’t agree to preservation and then pass a rule with strict guidelines (on a party line) on the use of that privilege.

Expand full comment
Dina's avatar

"Additionally, the poll found that support for filibuster elimination went up when it was explained that it made policies more likely to pass." Framing, framing, framing. I think Americans are much more easily persuaded when you say 'do you want a simple up or down vote on bill?

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts