Sinema…
…couldn’t care less what names Joe Biden calls her.
The filibuster stands – for now. Here are some quotes from Sinema’s speech on the subject:
What is the legislative filibuster other than a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators representing a broader cross section of Americans, a guardrail inevitably viewed as an obstacle by whoever holds the Senate majority?
Demands to eliminate this threshold (from whichever party holds the fleeting majority) amount to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon, shouting to their colleagues that the solution to their shared challenges is to make that rift both wider and deeper.
Consider this: in recent years, nearly every party-line response to the problems we face in this body, every partisan action taken to protect a cherished value, has led us to more division, not less.
Sinema makes it clear in her speech that she supports much of the Democrats’ agenda – including the very bill they are so eager to end the filibuster to pass, HR1. But she will not support ending the filibuster to pass it. That’s unusual, and I certainly never expected this of Sinema back when she was first elected.
And Tom Cotton reminds everyone (everyone listening, that is) that Chuck Schumer used to be vociferously pro-filibuster – when Schumer was in the minority in the Senate, that is.
Manchin joined her (again) a little while ago.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Sinema and Manchin are as resolute as they are as a favor to both Democratic and Republican colleagues who want to keep the filibuster but don’t want to take the heat for it. I would bet money that the actual number of Senators who really want to eliminate the filibuster is less than 30. Sinema and Manchin know there’s going to be no real pushback on this from the party establishment.
But we should also be clear that eliminating the filibuster is what immigration reform was to the Republicans, an issue to be recklessly demagogued but never acted upon. That opened the door for Trump and the Democrats are working hard to open that door wider for someone a whole lot more destructive.
Mike
MBunge:
In previous posts and comments I’ve suggested that there are other Democrats who have been silent on this but who actually side with Sinema and Manchin.
But although I think there are, I don’t know why think wouldn’t speak up, too, especially if they come from swing states.
Also, I think the Democrats for the most part are very serious about doing WHATEVER it takes to pass HR1.
Smoke and mirrors. She says she doesn’t support changing the Senate rules. But they don’t have to change the Senate rules to set aside the filibuster for any vote. They just did this in December; few of us noticed it and all the Senators appear to have amnesia. This is theater, guys. The bill is not passing because there’s not a majority of Senators in favor, it has sweet F A to do with “changing the Senate rules”. When it has a majority in favor, they will set aside the rule quietly as they did just last month and pass it.
From the link:
“Interestingly, the resolution succeeded because it did not require 60 votes to clear a filibuster in the Senate after lawmakers passed a bill last Thursday granting a one-time exception to the rule.
The deal to suspend the filibuster was bipartisan; leaders of both parties have hesitated to make exceptions to the filibuster, a procedural rule requiring a Senate supermajority to pass legislation, if it gets blocked by the opposition. Senators were willing to make an exception in this case, for two reasons.
One, it enabled Democrats to approve the debt limit resolution on their own, with no Republican support. Republicans wanted to withhold their votes in hopes of weaponizing Democrats’ vote to raise the debt ceiling in future campaigns. Two, the deal allowed a vote to be held quickly, narrowly avoiding the December 15 default deadline calculated by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
This last-minute deal enabled lawmakers to avert a debt default and massive economic crisis while overcoming a partisan impasse on the subject. For some Democrats, too, it revealed that exceptions to the filibuster are possible — and an option lawmakers should consider for other bills.”
The woman has cojones.
Much more so than the current occupant at The White House.
What happens if McConnell and the GOP decide that they can “enable Democrats to approve HR 1 on their own, with no Republican support” so that “Republicans withhold their votes in hopes of weaponizing Democrats’ vote to enact HR 1 in future campaigns.”
That’s what happened with the debt ceiling. And when it happened, last month, McConnell agreed to “nuke” the filibuster against his own party who would have filibustered. And all these people who are selling you on the R’s being your only hope against the D’s have amnesia about it. And the amnesia has spread to all the people selling progressives on “we could get HR 1 passed if it weren’t for Sinema and Manchin and GOP obstruction”. We, the voters of both Left and Right, are getting played by DC insiders and their fake narratives.
Frederick:
They are talking about setting aside the filibuster for just one vote, the vote on HR1. Sinema is addressing that issue. In the example you cited (raising the debt ceiling), there actually was bipartisan support for doing it, although the Republicans who supported it didn’t want to go on record as supporting it.
The situation is quite different for HR1, which has no bipartisan support at all. Sinema’s objection to nuking the filibuster is that it allows bills to pass by an extremely narrow majority with no bipartisan support. The Republicans do not support HR1 for quite a few reasons, but the reasons include self-interest: HR1 would hurt their own chances of being re-elected.
Also, I think the Democrats for the most part are very serious about doing WHATEVER it takes to pass HR1.
A grand total of 1 House Democrat voted ‘no’ to that horrid piece of legislation last March. There are a boatload of safe Democratic seats in the House, and none of the safe Democrats elected to vote ‘no’ lighting the trail of gunpowder leading to the shed full of TNT.
You know who supports HR1? Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. So what is it about the board and staff of these soi-disant non-partisan GooGoo groups? Are they idiots or frauds?
A tangled web.
Sinema is an interesting case. According to Wikipedia (if you believe Wikipedia) she experienced extreme poverty as a child. Her mother and step father dispute the claim. So, she either brings a perspective that is a bit rare in “the world’s greatest pontifical body”, and the cloakroom of the privileged; or she is just another Democrat liar.
https://www.commoncause.org/about-us/national-governing-board-2/
Have you ever heard of any of these people on the board? I’ve heard of one – Robert Reich – whose current advocacy on Facebook is a reminder that age does not improve one’s acuity.
@Neo:The situation is quite different for HR1, which has no bipartisan support at all.
Agreed.
Sinema’s objection to nuking the filibuster it allows bills to pass by an extremely narrow majority with no bipartisan support.
So where was she last month? Nuking the filibuster with Mitch McConnell’s help. HR 1 will be 51-50 just like the debt ceiling would have been.
You’er edging up to it but not quite there. The filibuster is not a D vs R thing or a minority-protecting thing. It is a DC insider vs the public thing. It’s only a rule when a numerical majority wants it to be a rule. There are people hiding behind Sinema. Some bipartisan majority opposes HR 1 or it would be law right now.
Each party is trying to fool its own base here. We should be smarter.
Here’s the thing: once 50 Ds plus Kamala want something, they will vote to set aside the filibuster which only ever requires a bare majority to do. If they’re not doing it, they don’t really want to do it. The filibuster is fake minority protection.
Sinema plus Manchin plus 50 Rs is a majority against, which is all that is ever needed, and only what is ever needed (and it’s bipartisan yay!). 50 Ds plus Kamala is an unstoppable majority, because the filibuster cannot be held against a bare majority. 41 Rs were not allowed to stop the debt ceiling vote despite the filibuster “rule”.
They’re talking about the rules so they don’t have to talk about the issue. And we’re letting them, just swallowing the narrative which the facts contradicted as recently as last month.
The debt ceiling, while we may object, is a big deal to the DC empire. Failure would be unacceptable. Party is secondary.
Dropping the filibuster reduces America to “two wolves and a lamb voting for what to have for dinner”.
I assume that Frederick’s assertion that the filibuster is a chimera is technically accurate. But conclude his assertion to be incomplete. In that it takes bipartisan support for the filibuster to be temporarily suspended. Were that not so, every bill that the democrats want would pass the Senate with only 51 votes needed.
“we should also be clear that eliminating the filibuster is what immigration reform was to the
RepublicansRINOs, an issue to be recklessly demagogued but never acted upon.” MBungeThere, I corrected it for you. To be a republican, one must be a conservative, otherwise one is a liberal pretending to be a republican, yes? Conservatives simply want the immigration laws that already exist to be enforced rigorously. Where conservatives do want reform is in foreign work visas. Such that foreign workers not be given jobs for which there are qualified American workers available. RINOs oppose reform in that area, which reveals them not to be republicans.
RINOs want to use the failure to enforce the current laws as an excuse to further weaken laws against illegal immigration. The GOPe wants cheap labor. The democrats want more voters.
Sinema is an interesting case. According to Wikipedia (if you believe Wikipedia) she experienced extreme poverty as a child. So, although she is an avowed Progressive, including an LGBT activist, she does bring a perspective that is a bit rare in “the world’s greatest pontifical body”, and the cloakroom of the privileged.
The account reminds me more of Gloria Steinem’s account of her youth, which she described as a manifestation of ‘crazy American class mobility’. Evidently her father is a lawyer. Her father also attended CalTech at one point and was registered there when he married her mother. There are addresses associated with her mother in deFuniak Springs, Florida during the period running from 1987 to 1993. Out of puerile curiosity, I’d be interested to know how it was that between three middle-aged adults, at least two of whom had post-secondary schooling, there was so little money entering that household that they were all squatting in an abandoned gas station for three years. Note, Defuniak Springs, Florida was down the road from the town her stepfather’s father settled in in 1976. (https://www.clary-glenn.com/obituary/6369693). The old man was a master carpenter; he evidently didn’t have any chits to call in to help his son find work.
Her stepfather married one woman in 1974 and another in 1996 (to whom he was still married in 2010). Her mother occupied a run of years in between.
@Geoffrey Britain:In that it takes bipartisan support for the filibuster to be temporarily suspended.
It does not. It takes only a majority vote to suspend any Senate rule, see Senate Rule XX.
But let’s not forget that the Senate invents its own rules. They’re not in the Constitution or in Federal law and nobody forces the Senate to follow its own rules, nobody CAN.
Were that not so, every bill that the democrats want would pass the Senate with only 51 votes needed.
Exactly correct. But “every bill they want” and “every bill they tell the public and their base they want” are different bills. Ergo, if a numerical majority does not override the filibuster, the numerical majority does not really want the bill.
This is Calvinball, guys. The rules are whatever a majority of them say they are. They like to pretend there’s all this process but there is no one but themselves who can make them stick to it. They cite the process to evade accountability to the voters.
As a general rule, I’ve been critical of the filibuster and have wanted it eliminated. The trouble right now is that the bulwark against electoral shenanigans should be the courts, and they made plain last year that they’re useless, and in some jurisdictions they are collaborators with the security state in harassing the opposition and in engaging in lawfare against Republican administrations. At this point, there really aren’t any rules and procedures and whatever we can bring to bear is to be used.
Note, the judiciary, the legal academy, and most of the bar have led us to where we are today. There are other actors, of course. The electoral vehicle of the whole lot is the Democratic Party.
I spoke of “the world’s greatest pontifical body”. This kerfuffle over the filibuster is a good example of why the term applies.
The term is a farce. I can only recall one filibuster in recent memory–and it was a show stunt.
As everyone on this forum would know, the rules used to require a 2/3 majority for cloture. They reduced that to 60 votes. So, a bill cannot go forward unless there are 60 votes to suspend debate–that’s it. No stunts; no extraordinary efforts required. Of course the Senate rules could just require 60 votes to pass the bill itself; but, that would be too simple. I suppose, as in Sinema’s case, this allows a Senator to profess support for the bill, while taking the high ground that more debate is appropriate.
We used to call that hypocrisy; but that is an archaic term.
I guess the Democrats think that the term “filibuster” carries a negative connotation in the public’s mind. The GOP should vociferously object to the use of the term. Unfortunately, I don’t think that they can spell vociferously; much less act it out.
Both Sinema and Manchin voted “yes” to “nuke the filibuster” on the debt ceiling on December 9th as did every single other D.
The R’s who voted to nuke the filibuster on December 9th so the Dems could raise the debt ceiling: Blunt, Capito, Collins, McConnell, Portman, Thune, Romney. Any surprises there?
McConnell on the filibuster three days ago: “If this unique feature of the Senate is blown up, millions and millions of Americans’ voices will cease to be heard in this chamber. … What the Democratic leader wants to do would not protect our democracy or our system of government. It would destroy a key feature…”
Romney on the filibuster Tuesday: “The majority decides in the House; the majority decides in the Supreme Court; and the president, of course, is a majority of one. Only in the Senate does the minority restrain the power of the majority.”
Neo already quoted Sinema so I forbear.
These amnesiacs all know exactly what they are doing, and that the media will tell the story their way, pretending that four weeks ago never happened. Only question is how long we plan to stand for it.
Seems to me that Frederick has the right of it. But then it would. One simply cannot be too cynical about the Potomac Punch and Judy Show. And this goes for any other so-called Constitutional Republic or Parliamentary Democracy more than 24 hours old.
Ascribe the basest motives to the performers in these charades and save yourselves a lot of wasted brain energy area under the curve in trying to fit curlicues and epicycles to their venalities so as to fit them into some grander strategy.
Only take them at face value when they state that they mean you harm. And assume that they mean you harm even when they don’t say so. Past performance is a good indicator.
Seems to me that Frederick has the right of it.
It’s a parliamentary practice which has been in place since 1806, and Frederick fancies its a mirage, seconded by you.
“…Chuck Schumer used to be vociferously pro-filibuster…”
Well, yes of course. The old “For-it-before-he-was-against-it” trick… (Perfected but not limited by any means to ole reliable John Kerry.)
OTOH, former “philo-filibuster” Chuck still apparently believes he has a genuine ace up his filthy sleeve…keeping in mind that it ain’t over till it’s over. Unfortunately:
“Schumer extends until Tuesday deadline on voting legislation, cancels Senate recess”
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/schumer-extends-until-tuesday-deadline-voting-legislation-cancels-senate-recess
Sure looks like ALL those other Democratic senators hinted at above had better think hard, take a long, deep breath and step up….
@Art Deco:Frederick fancies its a mirage
Dude. I linked to the vote on the Senate’s website and more than one article that described all the shenanigans contemporaneously. You can keep your eyes closed if you want; I don’t understand why you are so eager to swallow a narrative that a media you know is hostile to you is propagating. Gell-Mann amnesia?
Incidentally, yesterday the House gutted a bill the Senate already passed, placed the voting rights provisions in it, and now has sent it back to the Senate where according to the rules it cannot be filibustered. Probably while Sinema was “defending the filibuster” and we were all praising her for it.
Sinema, in her fiery filibuster speech, already promised to support it. By focusing the narrative on the process, the media has successfully distracted you from the issue, which is working out exactly how a 50+1 D Senate wants it to work out. The House could have done that a week ago but the media needed time to distract you with “nuke the filibuster” drama. Now the bill will pass with a 50+1 D majority. You can say thank God for Sinema and the filibuster! The voters in her state probably will. Are you getting the picture yet?
It’s just like I told you. But keep your eyes closed if you like. I’m sure the Washington Generals are due to beat the Globetrotters real soon. They just need better refs, I mean the Globetrotters had a ladder on the court! What game where the refs watching?
“The move effectively sacrificed the NASA portions of the bill, something that Beyer said he accepted. “Though I did not expect this outcome when I first introduced the NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension Act, if my legislation will help overcome the filibuster, the Senate can finally have the long-overdue debate on voting rights this country deserves,” he said in a Jan. 13 statement. “I would be honored to make this unexpected contribution to the cause of protecting our democracy.”
The House passed the bill Jan. 13 220 to 203 on strict party lines, with Democrats voting in favor of the bill and Republicans against it.”
“ The Republicans do not support HR1 for quite a few reasons, but the reasons include self-interest: HR1 would hurt their own chances of being re-elected.”
The flip side, somewhat, is that any AZ (Sinema, Giffords/Kelly), and probably GA Senators who vote for HR-1 can probably kiss their Senate seats goodbye. Of the 4 of them, the only one who won their seat legitimately, maybe, was Sinema. The other three were swept into office on the election fraud that unseated Trump. In AZ, we are potentially talking 500k questionable votes picked up by the canvas, and maybe 100k by the senate audit, for a margin for Kelly/Giffords of 20k (to Biden’s margin of 10k). It was massive. It had to be to put Biden over the top in a state where the enthusiasm for Trump was palpable, and non existent for Brandon. And a lot of Arizonans are mad. As with GA, and several other states, the voting laws are being tightened up to prevent this in the future. To nullify those tightened up voter laws, and the ability to take Dem voter fraud nationwide, is, of course, the purpose of HR-1.
I think that in reality, there probably isn’t a Dem (except maybe Manchin) who would mind HR-1 being enacted. But having to openly vote for it is the issue. There are estimates of maybe 7-8 Dem Senators who have cold feet with this legislation (as well as Build Back Bankrupt). They just don’t want to risk having their name tied to a vote for the legislation. If Sinema and Manchin take the heat for preventing that embarrassing vote,, then they are happy as clams.
@Bruce: The flip side, somewhat, is that any AZ (Sinema, Giffords/Kelly), and probably GA Senators who vote for HR-1 can probably kiss their Senate seats goodbye.
You’re out of date. The NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension Act, already passed by the Senate and cannot be filibustered, has been hollowed out by the House and is now the “Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.” Sinema promised to support it yesterday while she was “defending the filibuster” and Republicans were praising her.
She’s going to keep her seat because she “fought so hard for the filibuster” and the media is going to hype that up as they’ve been doing. And she won’t be voting for HR 1, no she voted for HR 5746…
“ She’s going to keep her seat because she “fought so hard for the filibuster” and the media is going to hype that up as they’ve been doing. And she won’t be voting for HR 1, no she voted for HR 5746…”
Saw that after I posted. But Kelly/Giffords and one Senator from GA, elected through voter fraud in 2020, are up for reelection. I don’t think that it is over until it is over.
@Bruce Hayden: But Kelly/Giffords and one Senator from GA, elected through voter fraud in 2020, are up for reelection.
1. How convenient that HR-1, er, HR-5746 makes elections easier for Democrats to win in part by making it harder to detect fraud.
2. What good does it do the country to have it enacted into law but later two Senators lose their seats over it? This happened with Obamacare, did it not. And then the R’s got majorities in both Houses and promptly repealed it.
Oh wait that didn’t happen. See there was this filibuster. Obamacare was passed by an end run around the filibuster, and debt ceiling was raised in December by an end run around the filibuster, and HR-1 excuse me HR 5746 will be passed by end run around the filibuster, but for repealing Obamacare, or HR 5746, the filibuster is an absolute barrier, unthinkable to abolish without abandoning hallowed Senate tradition and republican norms.
Are we tired of being played yet or do we need to have the lesson a few dozen more times?
Frankly, I wouldn’t mind a constitutional amendment to make a 60% vote require to pass bills all the time. If you can’t get 60% in a Republic it probably shouldn’t be done.
@Martin:Frankly, I wouldn’t mind a constitutional amendment to make a 60% vote require to pass bills all the time.
And I’m sure that the Harlem Globetrotters would make a fine NBA team that could play real basketball and do well. But that’s not the business they are in. What would put them out of their real business and into a different one? People not spending money to watch the show.
Its curious to me how Kyrsten Sinema ended up at the center of this whole thing to begin with. She’s hardly the only Democrat in the Senate who wants to block ‘voting rights’ legislation. Does anyone here think that Jon Tester wants to have a vote on this bill?
So question: how did Sinema end up being THE senator holding up the federal elections bill? Is it because the Democrats think she’s the one they can bully into switching sides? Or maybe she’s bringing attention on herself because she thinks standing against Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden helps her image?
@baltimoron:how did Sinema end up being THE senator holding up the federal elections bill?
Same way McCain did for repealing Obamacare, fix was in and someone needs to take the heat for the others, someone who can survive it with their own voters.
Insurance industry insiders were never, ever worried about Obamacare repeal. They knew all along.
Frederick
OK, but my question was what exactly is the “fix” in this case and who’s behind it. We’ll probably never know the full story, but it is fun to speculate.
Personally I think it is a combination of the two things I mentioned above. The Democrats originally thought that they could pressure Sinema to side with them and Sinema realized that by holding firm she could present herself as a moderate to the voters back home. Now they’re stuck in this go round where no one can back down without losing face.
Schumer, Biden and the media also can’t switch to target another senator at this point. It would make them look weak and it would alienate the other senator from the party base for no good reason.
“The flip side, somewhat, is that any AZ (Sinema, Giffords/Kelly), and probably GA Senators who vote for HR-1 can probably kiss their Senate seats goodbye.”
No, they won’t! With all due respect, you don’t get it. With the voting fraud bill now a certainty, Democrats in Phoenix and Atlanta will simply manufacture as many “votes” as needed to assure victory. Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are now permanently blue states. Probably North Carolina, Missouri, and Tennessee as well.
I would not be at all surprised if by this time next year Pelosi and Biden simply declare the Republican party a terrorist organization and move to abolish it.
@ mkent > “I would not be at all surprised if by this time next year Pelosi and Biden simply declare the Republican party a terrorist organization and move to abolish it.”
They are already doing that.
Tucker Carlson – close to the end of this segment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF5Bb3Mt0rg
“Tucker: This is worse than we thought”
And this:
https://notthebee.com/article/biden-just-called-yall-domestic-enemies-if-you-disagree-with-him