Home | About | Donate

Warren First 2020 Contender Open to Killing Senate Fillibuster Rule in Order to Pass Visionary Agenda

#1

Warren First 2020 Contender Open to Killing Senate Fillibuster Rule in Order to Pass Visionary Agenda

Jake Johnson, staff writer

While many declared and likely Democratic presidential candidates have expressed enthusiastic support for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, a $15 minimum wage, and other ambitious progressive policies, 2020 hopefuls have not yet committed to eliminating an archaic filibuster rule in the Senate that—if left intact—would make these priorities virtually impossible to pass.

0 Likes

#3

Sounds to me like Liz is one-up on the rest of the field with this proposal.

Now, if only I can get past her endorsing Hillary Clinton over Bernie in 2016.

3 Likes

#4

This might be a good idea if you also work to remove all the dangerous war mongers and climate deniers. The Treasury is being bled dry by not only low to no taxes on the wealthy but the US Empire’s endless wars for other peoples resources.

3 Likes

#7

The filibuster is de facto minority rule. Not surprising considering other anti-democratic checks in the Constitution since its founding. Also not surprising Booker doesn’t want to scrap it, since he’s just another corporate Dem and doesn’t want to do shit to upset the status quo, mainly like Obama.

1 Like

#8

That too.

0 Likes

#9

There’s a built-in structural advantage for republicans who will likely control the Senate for the foreseeable future. Giving them the advantage of filibuster-proof majorities is just plain stupid, short-term thinking.

2 Likes

#10

Booker is not a progressive, he is a bankster and pharma?

3 Likes

#11

Cory Booker just eliminated himself from the campaign. He should have kept his mouth shut.

1 Like

#12

Filibuster is not in the constitution. It is like seniority; anti democracy.

2 Likes

#13

I’m sure Booker loves that filibuster. He and other neoliberals count on it for GOP protection from their own fake grandstanding.

Neoliberals will not touch the filibuster. It’s been the best friend they’ve had for years.

4 Likes

#14

The Senate is already too powerful and I actually prefer their inability to do nothing unless the other party at least partially agrees. Look what is happening to judicial appointments now that they dropped the 60 vote rule. This is a bad idea.

1 Like

#16

No way will I ever support or vote for any of the AIPAC hoes that put the bully Zionist of Israel over and above the needs and desires of the U.S. citizen People. Elizi is one of several in the 2020 mix…

0 Likes

#17

I never said it was in the Constitution, I just mentioned there’s other similar anti-democratic things found there, like non-direct election of Senators, property requirements to vote, the Electoral College, etc.

1 Like

#18

…Judgment with no solutions…if you’re going to tear down, end with something we can build on instead of just finding fault. Do you see folks ‘without’ fault, which is kind of like myth?..

1 Like

#19

Booker sez:
“I think it is good to have the power of the filibuster.”

Little typo there, eh, Senator? You mean it’s good to have the cover of the filibuster.

0 Likes

#20

Most who have been watching aunt Lizzy knows she talks big but never follows through. Had she backed Sanders, we would be living in a different timeline where Trump never would have been important in that universe.

2 Likes

#21

They will Fail and we will get nothing.

0 Likes

#22

You and I both know this. Now, how do we convince the 95% of the voting electorate who chose the two Corporate candidates in 2016?

0 Likes

#23

I approve of this notion. After years of Republicans completely up-ending the rules, we shouldn’t be the only ones to consider the rules themselves sacred. If the agreement is gone, it’s gone. They destroyed voting rights to pass tax cuts when folks are struggling. They’re destroying our moral humanitarian standing in the world. Time to fight for the people. Gloves off!

0 Likes

#24

I would be all-in to making the Senate less powerful. Give them the ability to veto a House bill with 60 or 67 votes but, otherwise, all things that pass the House become law with the President’s signature or an override of his veto. Under the current system, I prefer an inept Senate to one with the ability to pass legislation with 51 votes.

1 Like