Home | About | Donate

'Enough With That': Warren Backs Killing Filibuster to Push Through Progressive Reforms

'Enough With That': Warren Backs Killing Filibuster to Push Through Progressive Reforms

Julia Conley, staff writer

Calling on the nation to "wake up to the reality of the United States Senate," Sen. Elizabeth Warren is set to announce Friday that she supports eliminating the filibuster.

The 2020 presidential candidate is expected to endorse the proposal in a speech at the National Action Network Convention in New York Friday morning.


I agree with Warren, the Filibuster has been used to thwart the will of the people.

A simple Majority should suffice, in the Senate, the House or the General Election.

In a Democracy it is about the Most Good for the Most People and Majority Rules.


The larger question is whether we need a senate at all. It seems an anachronism born of wealthy white men’s desire to protect their privileged positions, and to keep the unwashed masses in subservience.
(Note that I don’t expect Sen. Warren to try to talk herself out of a job, but it’s a conversation we need to have.)


At a minimum the rules for composition of the Senate need to change. Classic example of why, are the population to Senator ratios of places like North Dakota / Illinois and Wyoming /California. THAT is not rational.


I’m with you, but resolving that question is a much bigger hurdle than getting rid of the filibuster (which I agree with - Bernie’s answer is let’s win the Senate first, but why not be open with the people on what your plans are? - Elizabeth’s answer is better). It’s even bigger than getting rid of the Electoral College (which can be done with the compact). My choice would be to replace the 50 pairs of Senators with 100 elected at large in a proportional scheme. I don’t expect that type of change for another 20 to 50 years though.

But I think true progressive policy items such as Medicare for All, Free Pubic College Tuition, and some form of stimulus/investment package for Green Energy can move forward with the existing Senate structure (we need some better Senators of course). I’m more worried about other impediments like corrupt campaigns (we need more campaign finance reform desperately) and a corrupted press (we need people to just turn off most of the terrible corporate press - there are plenty of alternatives now).


Elizabeth, may I respectfully ask: if you really believe that statement, why did you back the Wall Street, walker over Bernie in 2016?


It allowed those hiding their real purpose behind the knowledge that even if they vote for something that made them look good it would never get through a filibuster. Just as 2/3 vote requirement did for politicians in Ca. look what happened when the 2/3 ended.

1 Like

I think term limits is also an important issue. There is no need for politicians to become so entrenched in their position of power that they lose their sense of what it is to be ordinary citizens. I know that it is unlikely that career politicians are unlikely to favor this and work toward ending there time in the senate but it does need to be added to any discussion on rules for change fo the congress.


Ok but before you limit terms you need to kill off lobbyists, permanently. Otherwise the lobbyists (who will be there for a life time career) will have the institutional knowledge putting the newbies at their mercy.

1 Like

If eliminating the filibuster is a good idea, why wait. Let’s do it now.

Has a book on the creation of “The Profession Of Lobbyists” been written yet? I know that people have always used whatever means possible to influence politicians but how did it become a full out and out business role ? I’m just curious as I really do not have the time to investigate all the legal ramifications of buying influence but it is sure a sorry way to run the show.

1 Like

You beat me to it. My thoughts exactly. When 1.5 mil people (ND and SD population combined) can veto the voices of 39.5 mil people (CA), that simply cannot be called democracy.

1 Like

There is nothing democratic about the Senate.

1 Like

Filibusters can work for either side, whichever is in the minority on the vote, and are supposed to respect rights of minority of opinions when the energy is high. The arguments here to eliminate lobbyists and the Senate structure altogether are more reasonable.
Why not filibuster those votes for war?

There is nothing democratic within the oosa government. We have one of the most corrupt systems even competing with those in African dictator run governments due to the fact that everyone is bought and bossed.

1 Like

Not a fan of Pelosi, but according to wikipedia.org, searching FILIBUSTER, the House has limited filibuster ability. Yet:

On February 7, 2018, Nancy Pelosi set a record for the longest speech in the House (8 hours and 7 minutes) in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

Dunno, but it seems to me to be a natural attraction on the road to corrupt Vulture Capitalism

Parasites will always take over and multiply until they kill the host, if they aren’t eradicated first.

All good points, but the bigger problem is the electorate the Senators come from in terms of exercising progressive goals.