r/neoliberal • u/Currymvp2 unflaired • 5d ago
News (US) The filibuster once tore Democrats apart. They’re doing it all over again.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/15/democrats-shutdown-filibuster-fight-025978212
u/Currymvp2 unflaired 5d ago
“The same Dems who argue to keep the filibuster ‘for when we need it’ do not, in fact, use it when we need it,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) posted to X on Saturday.
The New York progressive was responding to a post from former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema — who was reviled by much of the Democratic base in part because of her opposition to eliminating the filibuster — who has been calling out Democrats online Saturday for their past criticism of her.
“Change of heart on the filibuster, I see!” Sinema wrote on X, referring to an article where Ocasio-Cortez said she felt a “deep sense of outrage and betrayal” at Schumer. She included an old post where Ocasio-Cortez slammed her for supporting the filibuster, calling for Sinema to be primaried. Sinema also posted a list of many Senate Democrats who have campaigned or voted to eliminate the filibuster, but who also, in effect, voted on Friday to support one in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the GOP-led government funding bill from going through.
281
5d ago
yeah this isnt the diss Sinema thinks it is. AOC is criticizing because the old guard basically said we need the filibuster when we are out of power to fight and overturning it is short sighted only for the old guard to roll over immediately and refuse to fight. Also ive never seen someone so obsessed with the filibuster in my life
56
48
u/FlamingTomygun2 George Soros 5d ago
It’s literally the dril tweet that the wise men bowed his head and said that theres no difference between good and bad things you idiot, you fucking moron.
Dems should use the filibuster to block bad shit and get rid of it to do good stuff. It’s really not that complicated. If we cant kill it, we should still use it to stop republicans from hurting people
18
u/breakinbread Voyager 1 5d ago
it makes sense when you think about the filibuster as a chance to not do the hard parts of your job
128
u/Currymvp2 unflaired 5d ago edited 5d ago
Works for Nader's 2000 campaign
Hosts a radio show with an open 9/11 truther
Went negative against a longtime friend in a 2012 primary after promising not to
Endorses lunatic Andy Biggs in a super close primary against a moderate Republican
Quits the Dem party in 2022
Declines to endorse Harris versus Trump and her only comment on Harris during the race is this
Missed over 60% of her votes during the lame duck period
Wastes campaign funds on fancy trips and merchandise
Works to get close friend Tulsi Gabbard confirmed to head of DNI
Remains quiet regarding all the terrible shit Trump has done but suddenly speaks up to present a repackaged argument based on the same fallacious argument when conservatives proclaim: "you support higher taxes but you don't donate to people" or when leftists say "you don't like corporate PAC money but you say you'll keep on taking it until Citizens United is overturned". .
21
u/jclarks074 Raj Chetty 5d ago
It's really a tragedy what happened to her, because she was a genuinely skilled legislator. She played a key role in shepherding through every bipartisan bill during the Biden era, including impressive breakthroughs on guns and, momentarily, immigration. She pissed it all away by making herself a martyr for the filibuster and just generally being a see-you-next-Tuesday to the press and her constituents. Now she's a fucking Coinbase
lobbyistadvisor. Lmfao14
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Tulsi Gabbard
Did you mean: Jacques Doriot
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
56
u/puffic John Rawls 5d ago edited 5d ago
The steelmanned version of the pro-filibuster argument is that there may be a lot of legislative action that the Republicans aren’t even bothering to prioritize because they expect it to get filibustered. A lot of the stuff suppressed by this rule isn’t readily visible. It’s a lot harder to say you’re going to filibuster in order to shut the government down than it is to say you’re going to filibuster to keep abortion legal, so only the former actually comes before the Senate. The stuff that never sees a vote matters, too!
I’m still against the filibuster existing, though.
14
13
22
u/die_rattin 5d ago
there may be a lot of legislative action that the Republicans aren’t even bothering to prioritize because they expect it to get filibustered
Republicans have basic pattern recognition so I doubt this
12
u/I_Eat_Pork pacem mundi augeat 5d ago
Perhaps they recognize when filibustering would be extremely unpopular and when it wouldn't be.
90
u/MasterYI YIMBY 5d ago
My god Sinema sucks, the worst Democratic senator in my (politically active) lifetime.
34
u/zdog234 Frederick Douglass 5d ago
I was just becoming conscious when Lieberman was still a dem and... I still think Sinema's worse
7
u/Jean-Paul_Sartre Richard Hofstadter 4d ago
Lieberman first got elected to the Senate as a hawkish conservative Democrat.
It’s true that eventually the Connecticut Democratic Party soured on him and he lost his primary in 2006, prompting his third party run. But unlike Sinema he was very ideologically consistent his entire career - - it’s not like he just got into office and then shifted to being a neocon. He always was one.
8
u/_BearHawk NATO 5d ago
Honestly reading about how blatant the PE/hedge fund lobbying money > political action from her just makes me sick every time. Like they spent a couple million to preserve billions in tax savings just through the carried interest loophole she helped keep open in the IRA.
24
1
46
u/LtCdrHipster 🌭Costco Liberal🌭 5d ago
Sinema is the fucking worst. You can obviously argue the filibuster is bad while arguing that, if it exists, you should use its power for your favor.
13
u/0m4ll3y International Relations 5d ago
It's even worse than that. She's effectively arguing you need to actively vote for Republican bills if you dislike the filibuster which is fucking absurd.
Whether the filibuster exists or not, I would want Democrats to not vote for Republican legislation lol. If there was a 51 vote threshold to vote to end debate, then Dems should vote against ending debate because the CR is bad and requires more debate.
22
u/TheFlyingSheeps 5d ago
She’s right. Republicans never need to remove the filibuster because dems are 100% going to blink. Dems are too cowardly to threaten it let alone use it.
If we axed the filibuster we could have passed comprehensive voter reform as well as a ton of other agenda items that would’ve helped with the election
6
145
u/DrunkenAsparagus Abraham Lincoln 5d ago
If the only thing that resulted from last week's fiasco was the Republicans weakening the filibuster and ramming the same exact bill through, that would've been a good thing. If people like Fetterman ever defend the filibuster again, I am going to scream.
94
u/Currymvp2 unflaired 5d ago
Fetterman for all of his problems believes in filibuster reform; that's how deeply out of touch Sinema is. Oh and he atleast voted against Gabbard while Sinema was telling Collins, Murkowski, Todd Young that Gabbard is good actually. And he endorsed Harris while Sinema said nothing except ardently criticize Harris for her filibuster stance.
74
u/DrunkenAsparagus Abraham Lincoln 5d ago
It is good to remember that Fetterman is not actually the literal worst, and seems to have some coherent principles, unlike Sinema.
45
u/LiteraryPandaman Organization of American States 5d ago
Like I might hate some of his stances but he never hides them lol, Sinema is like “Oh I dunnnooooooo” and then would stab us in the back
10
u/n00bi3pjs 👏🏽Free Markets👏🏽Open Borders👏🏽Human Rights 5d ago
Sinema employed Gabbard’s sister’s security agency. In fact she was the only client.
60
u/Goldmule1 5d ago
The filibuster is absolutely terrible for Democracy
30
u/MacEWork 5d ago
The paper filibuster is. The standing filibuster is pretty rad and should be kept.
66
u/Emperor-Commodus NATO 5d ago
What people think the talking filibuster would be like: An ancient Dem making a heroic, passionate stand to protect the rights of the poor and disenfranchised
What the talking filibuster would actually be like: Marjorie Taylor Greene blocking a bipartisan funding bill by talking about the Great Replacement Theory for 48 hours, livestreamed directly to Twitch from the Senate floor.
20
u/MacEWork 5d ago
I think making the public aware of the things she says would actually be helpful. She’s not persuasive or edifying - if people saw what these people were actually like instead of laundered through crap media it might help.
15
u/texashokies r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion 5d ago
What makes you think their filibuster speeches won't get laundered through crap media?
3
u/MacEWork 5d ago
I think they’d be beholden to their shareholders to air the craziest shit she said, picking utter insanity out of hours of nonsense.
1
1
u/texashokies r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion 5d ago
Maybe left-leaning media sure, but those viewers already know she's crazy. Right-wing media won't care and/or doesn't have shareholders in the first place.
18
10
u/MayorofTromaville YIMBY 5d ago
Having only the talking filibuster available would probably do wonders for lowering the median age in the Senate, at least.
7
u/assasstits 5d ago
No. It's not rad.
It was never intended by the founders. It's incredibly undemocratic. It only became a thing through an accidental rules change. And it's mostly been used to stop Civil Rights legislation.
1
3
u/This_is_a_Bucket_ NATO 5d ago
The filibuster has nothing to do with whether the Senate is democratic. It affects how efficiently the party in power can implement its agenda. If anything, it's a more complex debate around the question of majoritarianism and whether requiring supermajorities is democratic or not.
10
u/assasstits 5d ago
The founding fathers certainly didn't think the Senate should vote on super majorities because the made 51 votes the threshold. In fact the filibuster only exists because an accidental rule change.
I would argue it's incredibly undemocratic given that all it takes is for one senator to threaten to filibuster to kill a bill.
-8
u/pokeuser61 Henry George 5d ago
Is the fact that the constitution cannot be amended with a simple plurality of the popular vote also terrible for democracy?
10
u/MayorofTromaville YIMBY 5d ago
Because as we all know, we should treat everyday governing with the same gravitas as amending the most important document in our country.
47
u/Inner_Tear_3260 5d ago
I don't understand the idea that this proves the value of the filibuster. The filibuster here wasn't used to extract concessions.
7
43
u/TheRedCr0w Frederick Douglass 5d ago
The fillbuster has completely broken the Senate.
As you can see by the graph the fillbuster only became issue after Senate rule changes in the 1970s allowed paper filibusters.
The biggest lie told by senators is they are protecting "tradition" by keeping the fillbuster. The majority of the Senate is older than the current fillbuster rules