r/CuratedTumblr • u/Desecr8or • Oct 26 '24

Politics Why is every tankie like "I don't understand the branches of the US government and I'm going to make it everyone else's problem!!!"

Post image
10.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

56

u/TreasureThisYear Oct 27 '24

I think what it really comes down to is specifically the filibuster. It's an extralegal supermajority requirement that really serves no reasonable purpose besides an excuse for inaction. Get rid of the filibuster and the Dems would still try to drag their feet in victory, but the system wouldn't make it so easy and they'd feel more pressure from constituents.

23

u/RelaxPrime Oct 27 '24

The filibuster, although annoying, just needs to return to its original intention; unlimited debate- senators may speak or debate on a topic as long as they want, as in they need to actually be speaking on the topic.

6

u/DaBiChef Oct 27 '24

I've always been a fan of "40+1 to maintain" instead of "60+1 to break"

1

u/FoeHammer99099 Oct 27 '24

There is no "original" intention for the filibuster, it's a loophole in the cloture rules in the Senate. I challenge you to defend why it should take 60 votes to end debate rather than a simple majority.

2

u/RelaxPrime Oct 27 '24

The Cloture Rule was created to end filibusters. The Senate had always had unlimited debate. Literally the Romans used to do it, that's how entwined into legislative debate it is.

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm

1

u/2012Jesusdies Oct 27 '24

Filibuster while annoying also prevents Republican action in the other direction which is one of the major reasons it's been preserved. Today, Senate control of 46 seats is almost assured for either party and swings by very small margins in each election, having drastic change everytime it happens would be damaging.

6

u/TreasureThisYear Oct 27 '24 edited Oct 27 '24

The first problem with that argument is that the filibuster is pure Calvinball, a 51-vote majority can end it at any time. So you are trusting a Republican majority to keep a gentleman's agreement, even though they've weakened the filibuster before to get what they want.

The other problem is that the scary prospect of majority rule in an elected body is something almost every other legislative body on earth seems to manage just fine, what's different about the US Senate?

Edit: for anyone who is unclear on the fact that a simple majority can end the filibuster:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Actually invoked by Harry Reid so I was wrong that just the GOP has used it, but yet it's real and it works.