GigEmADED said:

---

Trump should bring up destroying the filibuster and packing the court to see how the liberal media responds to it

---

Yes.

I don't want to kill the filibuster, but if the Dems are not willing to protect it, then the GOP must preemptively strike.

They talked about it for so long and I'd love to see how they respond when roles are reversed

GigEmADED said:

---

Trump should bring up destroying the filibuster and packing the court to see how the liberal media responds to it

---

Why would that matter? Regardless of what the MSM says today, when the dem's do it later the MSM will just say it was necessary to preserve democracy and reproductive rights.

Broseph said:

---

Interesting concept. Either enshrine it or kill it and get it over with. First to strike has the advantage so might as well be Rs.

Or enshrine it which is what is best for the country. I could see the Dems getting enough votes for this.

---

We on same page.

If the Dems in Senate wont act... there may be enough State Legislatures in Dem hands that are scared enough of the GOP killing it to go along with ratifying a new amendment.

Personally, I would like it extended to the House as well and see an additional Sunset Law amendment that expires laws that are not renewed every 7 years.

No. They might just call our bluff.

I agree that Rs should try to enshrine it.

Muy said:

---

GigEmADED said:

---

Trump should bring up destroying the filibuster and packing the court to see how the liberal media responds to it

---

Exactly! Don't do it but just show the country what fraud's the left are.

---

Yep. I don't want them to do it, but the entertainment value of Trump saying "the Democrats were right, we need to eliminate the filibuster and add more seats to the court" would be spectacular.

AggieUSMC said:

---

I need that Michael Scott "NO, NO, NO!" gif.

If the filibuster dies, say hello to DC and Puerto Rico as states and federal control of elections when the Dems are in power again.

---

re-read the conditional response above.... I want to protect it but we need Democrats to protect it as well. If they won't we have no choice. If they force our hand, we can simply release Puerto Rico to be independent and retrocede D.C. to Maryland.

Quote:

---

New Senate Majority GOP must consider killing filibuster.....

---

No

Not just "No" but "Heck No" - do not give option to kill it, they may call bluff - remember Harry Reid and his judicial review vote moved to simply majority. This bit the Democrats in the butt with Trump and McConnell - learn from history, don't repeat mistakes b/c it is good for your side now.

Enshrining it into the constitution would be difficult with state ratification requirements, but codifying into law vs just an "agreement" for each new congress would be a good step. Once this is accomplished, then you require a filibuster proof senate to repeal the law. How do you get to 60 right now? not sure, but this is the better solution in my opinion.

Personally, I'm still believe the senate needs to go back to its origins and be appointed by the state legislatures and not popular vote - repeal the 17th amendment! This would solve more future issues in the senate more so than saving the filibuster. The House was supposed to be for the "commons" and flow/ebb with the whims of the populace, while the senate was to be the bulkhead that kept the house in check. Now we just have 2 houses with 100 of them being on 6 year terms.

Agreed. The Senate should represent the states. It is a Republic, after all.

C@LAg said:

---

Progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal reneges on support for axing filibuster after Republicans flip the Senate

https://nypost.com/2024/11/12/us-news/progressive-rep-pramila-jayapal-reneges-on-support-for-axing-filibuster-after-democrat-loses-on-election-day/

Filibuster for me, but not for thee.


Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress.

"Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No," the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill.

"But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver," Jayapal added.

"It's the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It's the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It's the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It's the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster," Jayapal tweeted.

The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would've "built some trust with the American people."

---

This is precisely why the GOP must force the issue. Give Dems a chance to agree to enshrine it..... or preemptively strike.

C@LAg said:

---

Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster," Jayapal tweeted.

---

The filibuster was in existence long before Democrats started passing Jim Crow laws.

Schumer promised (repeatedly) to end the filibuster this cycle if his team won anyway, might as well do it while the commies are out of power.

1. Propose constitutional amendment to cement filibuster in Senate
2. Kill filibuster and begin ramming through legislation to make America great again
3. Watch congress and blue states approve new constitutional amendment faster than Kamala can down a bottle of wine

In other words, she admits to being a complete liar and hypocrite. Leader of the 'progressive' caucus.

Quote:

---

Speaking at a press conference with the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Monday, Jayapal was asked how she weighed her plans to use the filibuster to protect Democrats' policies after her party lost control of the White House, Senate, and likely the House, with her previous advocacy to get rid of it.

"Look, I think this is where it goes back to before this election, right? If we had had control of the trifecta and got rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing abortion access, that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular, those aren't going to the state legislatures, either, those are going to the ballot, then I think we would have built some trust with the American people," she said.

"I don't think it's in opposition at all. I think, obviously, would I be, am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now, when the Senate has the trifecta?" Jayapal continued. "No, but had we had the trifecta, I would have been because we have to show that government can deliver."

Democrats have been shuffling toward reforming or completely removing the rule in the Senate that, in practice, requires 60 senators to pass most legislation. There are exceptions to the rule, such as when it comes to approving political appointees such as judges.

---

"Our good agenda is worth trashing it, but their bad agenda we need it to stop."

AggieUSMC said:

---

I need that Michael Scott "NO, NO, NO!" gif.

If the filibuster dies, say hello to DC and Puerto Rico as states and federal control of elections when the Dems are in power again.

---

Well get ready. It's going to die the next time the Dems get full control. That's the whole point of this discussion!

This will go nowhere. Th Republicans are never as cohesive as the Democrats when it comes to issues and actions. The Democrats almost always vote along party lines, the republicans almost always split their votes.

Americans voted for an administration that would protect their rights. It doesn't seem like good strategy to immediately champion ideas that would likely lead to government overstep, even if the Democrats were calling for it first and even if it's meant as a bluff.

Bob Knights Paper Hands said:

---

Americans voted for an administration that would protect their rights. It doesn't seem like good strategy to immediately champion ideas that would likely lead to government overstep, even if the Democrats were calling for it first and even if it's meant as a bluff.

---

The filibuster rule is not a right. I expect Democrats to use it to block 'ideas' Americans support far and wide, such as border security (the actual border, not funds for Ukraine and green new deal/amnesty), tax cuts, regulatory reduction legislation, etc.

GigEmADED said:

---

Trump should bring up destroying the filibuster and packing the court to see how the liberal media responds to it

---

Just mentioning it. This is how you check for your opponents weaknesses.

Oh, the IRONY!

NEW: Senate Democrats are set to regularly use the filibuster when Trump takes office - Washington Examiner

Democrats previously sought to abolish the rule, which requires 60 votes to pass most measures. pic.twitter.com/4K68xZ9bVn

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 25, 2024

will25u said:

---

Oh, the IRONY!

NEW: Senate Democrats are set to regularly use the filibuster when Trump takes office - Washington Examiner

Democrats previously sought to abolish the rule, which requires 60 votes to pass most measures. pic.twitter.com/4K68xZ9bVn

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 25, 2024

---

Hate Schumer and the Dems but the Senate needs the filibuster. But the old rules, where Senators just read from the phone book (or in this era, from their X feeds) for hours and hours on end. Should be the endurance race it originally was. Wear people out.

The GOPe will not do it. They hate Trump more than they hate the Marxists on the left. Most of them probably voted for Harris.