If Republican Senate doesn't get rid of the Filibuster Rule & go to a simple majority, ...

Real Donald Trump twitter account ^ | August 23, 2017 | President Donald Trump

[SMGFan]

If Republican Senate doesn't get rid of the Filibuster Rule & go to a simple majority, which the Dems would do, they are just wasting time!

[DoodleBob]

I don't know why he posts this sort of nonsense.

This was detailed in the recent "Cheese in the Maze" article. In short, while the media perseverate over the tweet, WINNING happens elsewhere. Here's a back-test of that theory.

Friday, July 28 - Trump tweets "I am pleased to inform you that I have just named General/Secretary John F Kelly as White House Chief of Staff. He is a Great American...." and "I would like to thank Reince Priebus for his service and dedication to his country. We accomplished a lot together and I am proud of him!"

Everyone spends the weekend losing their mind.

On Saturday, July 29, Trump tweets about eliminating the filibuster.

July 31 - Kelly is sworn in as COS. Trump tweets "A great day at the White House!"

August 1 - count 'em, one, two, three tweets...none about judges.

Which is "odd"...BECAUSE...the Senate on August 1 confirmed Kevin Newsom to the 11th Circuit, joining Sixth Circuit Judges Amul R. Thapar and John K. Bush as confirmed Trump appointees. Ralph Erickson has already had his hearing and should be confirmed soon for the Eighth Circuit.

To date in his administration, Trump has outpaced Barack Obama and Bill Clinton with his judicial appointees. Trump has so far had confirmed one Supreme Court justice (Neil Gorsuch) and three circuit court nominees.

Thus, I'd recommend popcorn when looking at tweets while preparing for something bigly to happen.

[Norseman]

>>When is doing something because it’s what the Democrats would do, the smart thing, or the correct thing to do?<<

Maybe when you’re tying your own hands in the process?

The Democrats are no doubt amazed the GOP continues to abide by the filibuster knowing they will dump it as soon as it’s to their advantage.

So, tell me what’s so smart about maintaining the current filibuster rule for legislation?

[AmusedBystander]

The Founding Fathers were not enamored of "simple majorities", which is why so many actions laid out in the Constitution require "supermajorities".

And the Founders could have required a "super majority" and they didn't. So they obviously were not too worried about the Senate doing the will of the people.

[CincyRichieRich]

The Republican Party is cling hard to the filibuster rule because it is a wonderful excuse for not passing things that the Democrats don’t approve.
....
Ding, ding, ding

It won’t happen because...
They hate Trump, but not really him, just that he impedes their normalcy....it is because they are bought and paid for already...healthcare, pharma, foreign, etc. They also I believe are blackmailed to the teeth, a suspicion I don’t understand why Trump hasn’t leveraged.

[Logical me]

McConnell is a liberal piece of foolish garbage. He should have gotten rid of Filibuster Rule the first day Trump took over as President. McConnell and Ryan have to be stripped as leaders.

[Amendment10]

Noting that the Founding States expressly constitutionally allowed non-equal Senate suffrage for specific issues like working with the House to override a presidential veto (1.7.2), I question if the Senate’s practice of supermajority votes for non-enumerated exceptions, such as filibuster, are allowed under the Constitution’s Article V equal suffrage clause for the Senate?

Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate [emphasis added].

Corrections, insights welcome.

[vigilence]

This is the fundamental argument that should be made on this issue. The 60 vote rule is unconstitutional and allows for what is academically called “the tyranny of the minority”.

[onona]

What's the point of eliminating the filibuster if the Republicans can't even deliver 50 votes on key legislation like the ObamaCare repeal/reform?

Please repeat that again real slow so everyone gets it.

[elpadre]

Anyone who takes time to read about the writers of the Constitution, quickly learns that everything contained therein was battled out until the exact wording wanted resulted. They clearly called for a simple majority vote pass all legislative issues except vetoes and treaties.

The filibuster rule is contrary to the Constitution. Get rid of it.

[Flick Lives]

The Senate is filled with gutless wonders, much like the ancient Roman Senate. Old men interested in power and prestige without responsibility.

[Flick Lives]

Nailed it!

[oincobx]

>>They clearly called for a simple majority vote pass all legislative issues except vetoes and treaties.

Voting on legislation still only requires a majority. The filibuster applies to a vote to end debate on a bill.

[LS]

We got a blue slip for one of the MN judges from of all people Frankenberry. Still waiting on Klobuchar, but if she comes in, that would make SIXTEEN circuit court judges confirmed by year’s end, beating JFK’s record by two.

[Wonder Warthog]

"No such thing is implied by clause 2.

It doesn't "imply" anything, it states it directly and clearly. Each house of Congress determines its own rules. That is how the filibuster came about in the first place. Originally, BOTH houses had a supermajority vote (filibuster). The House changed their rules long ago. The Senate did not.

"Clearly the majority can set the rules and change the rules, so a majority vote is what’s required by the Constitution, except in those cases specified where a supermajority is required."

Yes, a majority vote is required TO CHANGE THE RULES. Once changed, the majority is whatever is stated in the changed rule(s), until another change is voted on. If the Senate chooses to require a 90% supermajority, that is how the Senate WILL operate, until changed by another majority vote.

[Wonder Warthog]

"And the Founders could have required a "super majority" and they didn't. So they obviously were not too worried about the Senate doing the will of the people.

The Senate was originally NOT intended to "do the will of the people". It was intended to "do the will of the states", and that was the case until the Constitution was amended to allow direct election of Senators rather than appointment by state legislatures (or whatever other means an individual state legislature might choose).

[DoodleBob]

Well, obviously, THAT will NEVER happen because Ivanka and Jared got Bannon to resign - that's what I saw on CNN. It's just a matter of time before Trump takes off his mask and mandates abortion and takes our guns away. I know, because some guy who said he knew Trump told this story to a Huffpo reporter, ya know, and the article had a picture of Trump with the Klintons and the Aliens guy.

I'm going to stockpile iodized salt.

[DoodleBob]

Ok, seriously, that is not only awesome news, but was done while all this Nazi/Antifa/Bannon stuff was taking up all the oxygen.

I'm not saying the aforementioned things were a smokescreen...it simply reinforces the Cheese theory, that you must look away from the main stage to see the real show.

Thank you.

[grumpygresh]

Could this also change rules for conviction after impeachment? House needs simple majority, Senate needs 2/3.

[Publius]

No. The language for impeachment, trial and conviction is hard-coded in the Constitution.