If the Dems end the filibuster...

1,914 Views | 25 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by MouthBQ98
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And use the moment to ram their agenda down the throats of half the country...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/huge-development-democrat-sen-joe-manchin-starts-to-crack-on-filibuster-signals-openness-to-change

Loser's consent will end.
PneumAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It has always been just a matter of time before this happens.
CyclingAg82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Joe Manchin, is a spineless wimp?

I am shocked I tell you.

Like Ted Cruz said, he is purple unicorn......he is with you all the way up until the moment you need him.
jagvocate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
An illegitimate President working with a Techno-Marxist Legislature, disregarding centuries of deliberative precedent?

Hello war.
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
they already told us they were going to end it.
they will ram their agenda down our throats
and they will continue to steal elections ensuring there is nothing the rest of us can do about it.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Easy solution. Set a metric of so many 50/50 votes or even so many less than 60 votes on successive legislation. If that metric is met, a special election is called for all 100 members of Senate. Let the people have a voice if there is an impasse.

Quit letting these leeching swamp creatures feel like they have least 6 year comfy gig and typically a life long retirement plan including cush gigs post retirement and tons of kickbacks.
jefe95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But see. They write the rules. So they will never write a rule to do that. Limits their power.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just need 34 of 50 states.
BuddysBud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fka ftc said:

Easy solution. Set a metric of so many 50/50 votes or even so many less than 60 votes on successive legislation. If that metric is met, a special election is called for all 100 members of Senate. Let the people have a voice if there is an impasse.

Quit letting these leeching swamp creatures feel like they have least 6 year comfy gig and typically a life long retirement plan including cush gigs post retirement and tons of kickbacks.


The Democrats will already have taken away our liberty long before such a Constitutional amendment could be passed.

A much easier solution would be a Convention of States to start over again. I doubt however if our current masters would allow that to happen.
TAMU1990
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We need a constitutional convention
policywonk98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Progressives salivating.

Lots of damage can be done in 19 months as we saw with Obamacare.

I hate having to rely on the GOP to bring their A game in 2022. It's more distracted than in 2010 because of Trump and the center-right populist frustrations.

Somebody has to pull the factions together for 2022. Progressives in control of everything is not good. Not good at all.
Onceaggie2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
but at least Trump is out and not tweeting /boyd crowder family
Maroon Dawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Why wouldn't he end it to pass HR1?

If that bill passes he'll never lose another election ever again as American elections will now be North Korea level farces
BuddysBud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fka ftc said:

Just need 34 of 50 states.


With the media controlled by the tyrants and half the country supporting its destruction, whether knowingly or not, assembling 34 of 50 states is unlikely.

Anyone supporting the convention likely would be branded a seditionist and arrested for treason.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

It's the Senate where things are going to get tricky for gun control legislation, since 60 votes are going to be necessary in order for the bills to pass. Joe Manchin seems adamant that he's not going to provide the final vote necessary to nuke the legislative filibuster, but the Left is doing its best to remind Manchin that if he doesn't, there's no guarantee that the universal background check bill will get to Biden's desk.
Quote:

Manchin nevertheless remains as intransigent as ever on the filibuster question in general. Asked on the Hill this past Monday about the circumstances under which he'd reconsider his support for it, he yelled "Never." "Jesus Christ!" he said to reporters. "What don't you understand about 'never'?"

And Manchin has already seen and made peace with Republicans in the Senate killing background check expansions twice this decadeonce in 2013 and once in 2015. It should be said that these failures give lie to the idea, promoted by Manchin and others, that the filibuster facilitates bipartisanship.

On both occasions, checks actually won the support of a bipartisan coalition of senators, and Manchin's bill might have passed in 2013 with a bipartisan 54-vote majority were it not for the filibuster and its 60-vote threshold. Instead of Congress passing a policy supported by the vast majority of the American people and offered up by cooperative and cordial members of both parties, Congress passed nothing.

It is likely that this will happen again. Asked about the BCEA's chances on CNN recently, Pat Toomey was pessimistic. "It's theoretically possible," he said, "but I'm not aware of a significant change in heart."
Absent that change in heart, all gun legislation will be doomednot just background checks but the rest of the proposals for Congress that President Biden ran on, including a new assault weapons ban, a ban on online gun and parts sales, and the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits over the use of their guns in criminal activity.

Biden wasn't the most ambitious of the primary candidates on gun policy, but his proposals would still be the most sweeping gun control measures implemented since Biden helped pass the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the original Federal Assault Weapons Ban as a senator in the early 1990s.

Quote:

The intra-party fight over the filibuster is already heating up, and it's going to get even spicier in the weeks ahead. The Democrats insisting that the filibuster go away know their legislative majorities are likely going to come to an end in next year's midterms, and if they want to enact their agenda they're going to have to destroy it sooner or later. They'd prefer sooner, under the theory that they'd be able to pass more legislation that the country would love, and by the time Election Day rolls around in 2022 the American people will have forgiven them for blowing up one of the few remaining checks on pure majoritarianism in Congress.

The more Manchin digs in his heels, the more the anti-filibuster Democrats are going to lash out. Of course Manchin has an ace in the hole, so to speak. At any time, he could leave the Democratic Party behind and begin to caucus with Republicans, giving them the Senate Majority. That might make him an even bigger enemy to the Left than Donald Trump, but it wouldn't hurt Manchin's popularity at home in West Virginia, where every single county went red in the 2020 election.
Link
Rocky Rider
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
policywonk98 said:

Progressives salivating.

Lots of damage can be done in 19 months as we saw with Obamacare.

I hate having to rely on the GOP to bring their A game in 2022. It's more distracted than in 2010 because of Trump and the center-right populist frustrations.

Somebody has to pull the factions together for 2022. Progressives in control of everything is not good. Not good at all.


The GOP has an A game?! Really?!

The GOP has been dead for more than 3 decades; since Reagan. This is why we are where we are.
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fka ftc said:

Just need 34 of 50 states.
no. you need 2/3 of each house first. and that is not going to happen.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Texit!
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie4Life02 said:

Texit!
there is no route where Texit "works."

No way enough states would agree to it.

And TX would lose any extended action.
The US would take its army and their toys back.
The US has control of the banking system and all of Texans monies, retirement accounts, etc
The US has control of the Internet and telecommunications.
The US controls the ports, the seas, the skies, the rails, the pipelines.

and somewhere around 100 strategic missiles on the highway system would slow things to a crawl.

the MAJORITY of Texas would crumble in 2 weeks or less.




BuddysBud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
C@LAg said:

fka ftc said:

Just need 34 of 50 states.
no. you need 2/3 of each house first. and that is not going to happen.


2/3 (34) of the state legislatures can call a Constitutional Convention without Congressional approval.

It still is unlikely.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BuddysBud said:

fka ftc said:

Just need 34 of 50 states.


With the media controlled by the tyrants and half the country supporting its destruction, whether knowingly or not, assembling 34 of 50 states is unlikely.

Anyone supporting the convention likely would be branded a seditionist and arrested for treason.
Understood, but 34 of 50 seems a reasonable target to achieve. The constitutional convention would then present all proposed amendments for ratification. Could go badly that way by your reference to control by media and cancel culture over anyone who opposes Lord Soros and fiends (or friends).
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BuddysBud said:

C@LAg said:

fka ftc said:

Just need 34 of 50 states.
no. you need 2/3 of each house first. and that is not going to happen.


2/3 (34) of the state legislatures can call a Constitutional Convention without Congressional approval.

It still is unlikely.
doh. you are correct.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Technically, over the decades, 35 states have already voted for one. The issue is how long those votes remain in effect.
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

Technically, over the decades, 35 states have already voted for one. The issue is how long those votes remain in effect.
I think it is reasonable that even the Supreme Court would agree that almost two generations is too long of a time to assume present day intention., especially as many states have flip-flopped throughout that time.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just ignore them like they ignore the law. Not sure the constitution gives scouts any day whatsoever in determining the legitimacy of a convention.
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

Just ignore them like they ignore the law. Not sure the constitution gives scouts any day whatsoever in determining the legitimacy of a convention.
1. it also does not say they cannot. they are the route of final appeal by the states.
2. It also does not say anything about an expiry of votes for a convention one way or the other.

states would appeal to the SCOTUS for interpretation. and you would be delusional if you think they would not address this at this time. this is an issue you can be 100% would be addressed and not ignored.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm Sure they would, but they only matter if their authority in such a matter is recognized.

Just pointing out when matters become so contentious and extreme, matters such as recognition of judicial review become rather irrelevant. Keep in mind, while the constitutional convention is explicitly in the constitution, judicial review is not and is merely inferred from common law practice and an evident need, but it's not a power spelled out in the text itself. It only exists if it is recognized. People desperate enough to call for a convention aren't going to give a crap what scotus says.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.