"I actually think we should restore the 60-vote threshold for the areas in which it has been eliminated already. We should restore it," Sinema said

[NorthernHawkeye]

An intelligent and thoughtful senator.

"Not everyone likes that because it would make it harder for us to confirm judges and it would make it harder for us to confirm executive appointments in each administration," Sinema said. "But I believe that if we did restore it, we would see more of that middle ground in all parts of our governance, which is what, I believe, our forefathers intended."

The 60-vote threshold for non-Supreme Court judicial nominations and executive branch nominees was ended when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Democrats invoked the so-called "nuclear option" in 2013, The Hill noted.

...

"While it is frustrating as a member of the minority in the United States Senate — and equally as frustrating in the majority, because you must have 60 votes to move forward — that frustration represents solely the short-term angst of not getting what you want," Sinema said. "We shouldn't get everything we want in the moment because later, upon cooler reflection, you recognize that it has probably gone too far."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/kyrsten-sinema-arizona-60-vote-threshold/2022/09/26/id/1089088/

 

[lucas80]

McConnell is preying on her naïveté. It was hilarious to watch her bend the knee to Moscow Mitch, and talk about how much she and Mitch love the Senate, and it's sense of comity.
Would it be better for America? Maybe. Team Red will turn it into a Hellscape, though.

 

[Huey Grey]

She will switch to the Republicans after the elections.

 

[Whatsgoingonwitgyouguys0190]

Fvck that. The republicans have made it so the middle ground would be somewhere in dead-man’s land

 

[Gus is dead]

McConnell is preying on her naïveté. It was hilarious to watch her bend the knee to Moscow Mitch, and talk about how much she and Mitch love the Senate, and it's sense of comity.
Would it be better for America? Maybe. Team Red will turn it into a Hellscape, though.

Hellscape? Because the current climate and discourse under Biden is so awesome?

You’re a complete useless idiot. At no point in modern history, under any parties leadership, even Trump, was this country a hellscape.

But let me guess. The republicans will
Make contraception illegal
Bring back slavery
Repeal the 19th amendment
Dehumanize immigrants
Outlaw same sex marriage
Outlaw minorities from voting
Bring back fascism and nazism

I’m a lifelong Republican and not one of these things will ever happen but the only way you lobs can hope to win elections, with things going as poorly as they are, is to convince others your opponents are evil.

Is that a strategy you’re on board with? I mean, seriously. If you believe that youre excusing more partisan attacks like happened in North Dakota recently by making your opponents evil. Who doesn’t think evil needs to be stamped out? By whatever means necessary right?

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Sinema is talking to many posters on this board.

Overly emotional and lacking maturity. Acting like petulant children.

"I want it my way and I want it now!"

 

[Slappy Pappy]

Biden is confirming federal judges and appointees on record pace due to the killing of the filibuster and McConnell's cutting debate time from 30 hours to only 2 hours in 2019.

The Republicans are panicking now that they aren't going to retake the senate, and the very real possibility the Democrats will keep it and the Presidency in '24. Going back to "old rules" would only help the party out of power - the Republicans - and would provide no guarantee that the Republicans wouldn't just kill them again once they retake the Presidency and Senate.

Sinema is just trying to keep earning her millionaire Republicans paychecks now while she us the crucial 50th vote, since next year she'll likely be the irrelevant 53rd Democratic vote and lose the Republican donations.

 

[Huey Grey]

Hellscape? Because the current climate and discourse under Biden is so awesome?

You’re a complete useless idiot. At no point in modern history, under any parties leadership, even Trump, was this country a hellscape.

But let me guess. The republicans will
Make contraception illegal
Bring back slavery
Repeal the 19th amendment
Dehumanize immigrants
Outlaw same sex marriage
Outlaw minorities from voting
Bring back fascism and nazism

I’m a lifelong Republican and not one of these things will ever happen but the only way you lobs can hope to win elections, with things going as poorly as they are, is to convince others your opponents are evil.

Is that a strategy you’re on board with? I mean, seriously. If you believe that youre excusing more partisan attacks like happened in North Dakota recently by making your opponents evil. Who doesn’t think evil needs to be stamped out? By whatever means necessary right?

I think that gay marriage is most definitely at risk.

 

[Gus is dead]

I think that gay marriage is most definitely at risk.

Thanks for the serious post.

I don’t think so. It’s baked in and almost everyone these days is totally on board. I’d say that it’s favored by probably 90% of Americans. Anecdotally.

Taking that position would be suicidal.

Im for adults having the freedom to choose who they marry no matter. I will say my beliefs have evolved though over the last few decades. I’d have said differently 20 years ago if I’m honest. But knowing more than one gay couple has changed my mind 180 degrees.

As a dude I could never suck off a dude but hey if you wanna I would add that being married to a dude sometimes seems like it would be easier than being married to a woman is.

 

[BioHawk]

Hellscape? Because the current climate and discourse under Biden is so awesome?

You’re a complete useless idiot. At no point in modern history, under any parties leadership, even Trump, was this country a hellscape.

But let me guess. The republicans will
Make contraception illegal
Bring back slavery
Repeal the 19th amendment
Dehumanize immigrants
Outlaw same sex marriage
Outlaw minorities from voting
Bring back fascism and nazism

I’m a lifelong Republican and not one of these things will ever happen but the only way you lobs can hope to win elections, with things going as poorly as they are, is to convince others your opponents are evil.

Is that a strategy you’re on board with? I mean, seriously. If you believe that youre excusing more partisan attacks like happened in North Dakota recently by making your opponents evil. Who doesn’t think evil needs to be stamped out? By whatever means necessary right?

A Supreme Court Justice literally asked for cases to overturn at least two of those things on this list, and one of them has pretty much already happened, at least with Trump. You are as naive as Sinema.

 

[sober_teacher]

Thanks for the serious post.

I don’t think so. It’s baked in and almost everyone these days is totally on board. I’d say that it’s favored by probably 90% of Americans. Anecdotally.

Taking that position would be suicidal.

Im for adults having the freedom to choose who they marry no matter. I will say my beliefs have evolved though over the last few decades. I’d have said differently 20 years ago if I’m honest. But knowing more than one gay couple has changed my mind 180 degrees.

As a dude I could never suck off a dude but hey if you wanna I would add that being married to a dude sometimes seems like it would be easier than being married to a woman is.

the hardline on abortion many republicans have been pushing could well be the reason they don't take the Senate, and at least calls into question their chances at the House. Several Republicans have made comments about taking action on gay marriage after Thomas called Obergefell into question.

They'd be dumb to do it, but Republicans have been playing to their base this summer/fall, not the political center.

 

[Gus is dead]

A Supreme Court literally asked for cases to overturn at least two of those things on this list, and one of them has pretty much already happened, at least with Trump. You are as naive as Sinema.

Maybe so. I never thought Trump would go out like he did either so I can be naive yes.

 

[gusto79]

Question for those that know more about this. When Reid invoked the "nuclear" option in 2013, did he do that because all the nominees were far left, and that's why they weren't getting through the Senate, or was McConnell blocking all nominees regardless if they were moderate or far left?

 

[Chishawk1425]

Koch Brother phony Democrat. Who gives a shit

 

[sober_teacher]

Question for those that know more about this. When Reid invoked the "nuclear" option in 2013, did he do that because all the nominees were far left, and that's why they weren't getting through the Senate, or was McConnell blocking all nominees regardless if they were moderate or far left?

Mitch at that point was slow-walking every single nomination. Didn’t have the votes to outright block them but enough to slow the process to a crawl.

if memory serves, between that and republicans taking the senate in ‘14, something like a quarter or so of the federal judiciary was vacant by the end of Obama term.

 

[MitchLL]

If the Dems succeed in flipping Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin...Sinema and Manchin become irrelevant.

Really would change things.

 

[Slappy Pappy]

Mitch at that point was slow-walking every single nomination. Didn’t have the votes to outright block them but enough to slow the process to a crawl.

if memory serves, between that and republicans taking the senate in ‘14, something like a quarter or so of the federal judiciary was vacant by the end of Obama term.

This is absolutely right. After Trump
took office, he declared "how nice it was Obama left all these federal judgeships for me to fill!" several times. It was because Mitch took slowing down the confirming process to historic levels, peaking with flatly refusing to follow the Constitution with Garland's nomination to the SC. His gamble obviously paid off.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Sinema is talking to many posters on this board.

Overly emotional and lacking maturity. Acting like petulant children.

"I want it my way and I want it now!"

Are you talking about a system where a single senator from, say, Kentucky, can thwart the will of a majority in the House and 59% of the Senate? Is that what you mean by "I want it my way and I want it now!"

Yes, that would be speaking to many posters on this board. You among them.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Question for those that know more about this. When Reid invoked the "nuclear" option in 2013, did he do that because all the nominees were far left, and that's why they weren't getting through the Senate, or was McConnell blocking all nominees regardless if they were moderate or far left?

Moscow Mitch endorsed Merrick Garland as a suitable nominee for the Supreme Court BY NAME prior to his nomination for the post.

 

[CLUB215]

If legislation for a national 15 week abortion ban was stuck in the Senate at 52-48 would you approve of suspending the filibuster to pass it?

 

[BioHawk]

If legislation for a national 15 week abortion ban was stuck in the Senate at 52-48 would you approve of suspending the filibuster to pass it?

As someone who would hate to see that happen and would very much piss me off, if a nationwide abortion ban got passed because there was no filibuster then so be it. That's the consequence for taking elections off and maybe it will be enough to motivate these people who care about these issues but don't always show up to vote, particularly at midterms, to make voting in every election a priority.

 

[CLUB215]

As someone who would hate to see that happen and would very much piss me off, if a nationwide abortion ban got passed because there was no filibuster then so be it. That's the consequence for taking elections off and maybe it will be enough to motivate these people who care about these issues but don't always show up to vote, particularly at midterms, to make voting in every election a priority.

I'm asking @NorthernHawkeye sorry

 

[BioHawk]

I'm asking @NorthernHawkeye sorry

Your comment was an opportunity to point out how the filibuster is not how the Senate was intended to run and how it is an undemocratic idea that has no place in our government. If there were real consequences to the votes, then people might take their votes more seriously. It would take a few tough bills though for this lesson to be learned, I have no doubt.

 

[thewop]

Absolutely we should. It's way to easy for a slim majority to take us to extreme places we don't want to be.

Restoring 60 would be a good start, though still scary should either side obtain a super majority.

Given the state of division and that both parties are largely influenced by the wings, I still like my plan for every state to select 1 dem and 1 R senator, and we require 55 to pass anything.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

I would like to see it for all new spending bills. Bills paid for by a tax increase would be exempt.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

If legislation for a national 15 week abortion ban was stuck in the Senate at 52-48 would you approve of suspending the filibuster to pass it?

Not at all.

We should keep it at 60 for everything.

And by the way, the abortion issue ranks low on my list of give a sh!t.

 

[sober_teacher]

Absolutely we should. It's way to easy for a slim majority to take us to extreme places we don't want to be.

Restoring 60 would be a good start, though still scary should either side obtain a super majority.

Given the state of division and that both parties are largely influenced by the wings, I still like my plan for every state to select 1 dem and 1 R senator, and we require 55 to pass anything.

The problem with the filibuster is that it’s turned into a de facto veto. Most of the senate votes now are simply votes to break the filibuster, not the actual bill.

I’d be in favor of capping how long a bill can be filibustered, as well as requiring a bill passed by the other chamber to be put up for a vote within 60 days of passage. The Speaker or Senate Majority Leader should likewise not be able to kill a bill single-handedly.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

We should keep it at 60 for everything.

And by the way, the abortion issue ranks low on my list of give a sh!t.

You want a 60 vote super-majority for passage...it should require that you stand up and actually filibuster the bill. The Senate grinds to a halt while you talk. No other legislation can be considered for as long as you want to control the debate. Make it consequential. Letting one senator - the minority leader - control the Senate by fiat is ludicrous.

And your last statement is pitch perfect evidence for why men shouldn't have control of women's health issues.

 

[sober_teacher]

You want a 60 vote super-majority for passage...it should require that you stand up and actually filibuster the bill. The Senate grinds to a halt while you talk. No other legislation can be considered for as long as you want to control the debate. Make it consequential. Letting one senator - the minority leader - control the Senate by fiat is ludicrous.

And your last statement is pitch perfect evidence for why men shouldn't have control of women's health issues.

Exactly - it’s a de facto veto. AT LEAST they should have to be physically present and speaking to block the vote.

The filibuster concept remains good in theory but it’s broken in reality. Both sides have to be willing to negotiate in good faith.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Exactly - it’s a de facto veto. AT LEAST they should have to be physically present and speaking to block the vote.

The filibuster concept remains good in theory but it’s broken in reality. Both sides have to be willing to negotiate in good faith.

It only works when both parties are interested in actually governing. The GOP abandoned that concept long ago. Their whole platform is "whatever they want, we're against".

 

[thewop]

The problem with the filibuster is that it’s turned into a de facto veto. Most of the senate votes now are simply votes to break the filibuster, not the actual bill.

I’d be in favor of capping how long a bill can be filibustered, as well as requiring a bill passed by the other chamber to be put up for a vote within 60 days of passage. The Speaker or Senate Majority Leader should likewise not be able to kill a bill single-handedly.

If everything took 60 votes there'd be no need for the filibuster.

 

[sober_teacher]

If everything took 60 votes there'd be no need for the filibuster.

If you required a 60% majority to pass legislation the concept of majority rule is dead.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

8

If you required a 60% majority to pass legislation the concept of majority rule is dead.

Measures are in place to prevent simple majority rule. Be thankful for that.

 

[sober_teacher]

8


Measures are in place to prevent simple majority rule. Be thankful for that.

Simple majority rule, yes. But the minority shouldn’t get veto power either. The filibuster began with good, honest intentions imo. It’s been badly abused of late.

 

[thewop]

If you required a 60% majority to pass legislation the concept of majority rule is dead.

Congress was never intended to be majority rule, so it should have never been alive.

House= majority rule
Senate= supermajority requirement.

Laws shouldn't be easy to change. There should be no sense that because Ds or Rs regain majority via 1 or 2 that any significant laws should change, unless a supermajority wants it (which requires bipartisan support).

Both sides should support 60.

 

[sober_teacher]

Congress was never intended to be majority rule, so it should have never been alive.

House= majority rule
Senate= supermajority requirement.

Laws shouldn't be easy to change. There should be no sense that because Ds or Rs regain majority via 1 or 2 that any significant laws should change, unless a supermajority wants it (which requires bipartisan support).

Both sides should support 60.

When was the Senate designed for supermajority? The 60 vote requirement to break filibusters was added in the early 1900s.