Filibuster... Kill it or save it?

Bipartisan JPP agreement to nuke the filibuster?

  • Yes lets hold hand and do this.

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • No, fvck Trump i disagree. Keep it.

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • I was for nuking it but not now i see Dems would like it.

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
QP!

QP!

Verified User
Is this the one item we can get a bipartisan majority on, on JPP with people from both sides saying 'Kill It'?

Trump wants it killed and i am all for that. Yes i agree with Trump on this issue.

My view is simple. Magats do not allow anything like 'Norms', 'laws', 'Senate Parliamentarians', etc to stop something in their agenda, if they truly want to do it. They will deny Obama his SC pick, they will simply not ask the Senate Parliamentarian if they can do something and just do it. They fire all the IG's and lawyers who could tell them no. It is only Democrats who ring their hands and get blocked by a Senate Parliamentarian and their singular view, etc and with Trump destroying all these checks and balances, with the Filibuster now on the block, this means the next and following Dem regimes will also be able to implement their agenda without the checks and balances.

Huge parts of Biden's last agenda were blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and the filibuster, and those parts would have really helped working people and benefitted the voters.

So lets all agree with Trump in bipartisan JPP hand holding and burn the filibuster down.
 
Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority vote, but only through a specific procedural pathway that has been used successfully multiple times in recent decades.

Here’s how it works in practice:
  1. Normal rule: Standing Senate rules (like the cloture threshold of 60 votes to end debate) require a two-thirds majority of senators present and voting to adopt changes (Senate Rule XXII).
  2. The nuclear/constitutional option: At the start of a new Congress (or sometimes mid-session), a senator raises a point of order that a particular rule or precedent is unconstitutional or should be reinterpreted.
    • The presiding officer (usually a freshman from the majority party) rules against the point of order.
    • The majority leader appeals the ruling of the chair.
    • The appeal is then decided by a simple majority vote (51 votes, or 50 + VP).
    • This creates a new precedent that effectively changes or overrides the old rule.
Real-world examples where this was done with 51 votes:
  • November 21, 2013: Democrats lowered the cloture threshold from 60 to 51 votes for all executive branch nominees and most judicial nominees (except Supreme Court). Vote: 52–48.
  • April 6, 2017: Republicans extended the same 51-vote threshold to Supreme Court nominees. Vote: 48–52 (after party-line votes on the appeal).
The Senate parliamentarian and most scholars acknowledge this procedure is legitimate because the Constitution (Article I, Section 5) gives each house the power to determine its own rules, and nothing in the Constitution requires a supermajority to do so — the two-thirds requirement in Rule XXII is itself just a rule that can be changed by simple majority via this precedent-setting process.

Bottom line: Yes, the Senate can and has changed its rules with 51 votes when the majority is willing to use the “nuclear option” to establish a new precedent.
 
Yes, nuke it. Dems will nuke it anyway if they were to ever get power back, so might as well beat them to the punch and actually implement a MAGA agenda in the meantime.
 
QP! said:
Is this the one item we can get a bipartisan majority on, on JPP with people from both sides saying 'Kill It'?

Trump wants it killed and i am all for that. Yes i agree with Trump on this issue.

My view is simple. Magats do not allow anything like 'Norms', 'laws', 'Senate Parliamentarians', etc to stop something in their agenda, if they truly want to do it. They will deny Obama his SC pick, they will simply not ask the Senate Parliamentarian if they can do something and just do it. They fire all the IG's and lawyers who could tell them no. It is only Democrats who ring their hands and get blocked by a Senate Parliamentarian and their singular view, etc and with Trump destroying all these checks and balances, with the Filibuster now on the block, this means the next and following Dem regimes will also be able to implement their agenda without the checks and balances.

Huge parts of Biden's last agenda were blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian and the filibuster, and those parts would have really helped working people and benefitted the voters.

So lets all agree with Trump in bipartisan JPP hand holding and burn the filibuster down.
Click to expand...
The filibuster is one of the top 10 list of crazy ass shit that needs to change in govt.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, nuke it. Dems will nuke it anyway if they were to ever get power back, so might as well beat them to the punch and actually implement a MAGA agenda in the meantime.
Click to expand...
Dems would not even nuke the 'Senate Parlimentarian' when very few people agreed with their legal opinion. And still the Dems allowed one unelected persons opinion to stop something they ran an election upon and the citizens supported.

But yes, no matter what you need to tell yourself i am happy we are on the same side.
 
Wait until the Dems are in power again, then nuke it.

Make PR, Guam, and DC states.

Stack the SC, then change the Constitution and turn over all Trump's pardons and put them into lock up for 25 years.

Dig up Trump's body and toss into the Potomac.

This is much gentler than what MAGA will do if they toss the filibuster.
 
Jake Starkey said:
Wait until the Dems are in power again, then nuke it.

Make PR, Guam, and DC states.

Stack the SC, then change the Constitution and turn over all Trump's pardons and put them into lock up for 25 years.

Dig up Trump's body and toss into the Potomac.

This is much gentler than what MAGA will do if they toss the filibuster.
Click to expand...

I would never trust Dems to nuke it. They will hand ring and not do it. ANyone thinking it truly stops Trump doing anything when the law does not, is fooling themselves. Let Trump nuke it.

Then yes, absolutely give PR, GUam and DC state status. Stack the SC. And build on ObamaCare to the full extent originally outlined. And implement Bidens full prior agenda.

Can't change the Constitution without massive State support so that wont happen.

But either Trump wins this Autocratic push, which he might, or the Dems will take back power and likely in a wave election and if they do, i want them to act with the aggressive push that magats do to implement their agenda but with no filibuster to slow them.
 
Stacking this supreme court has to be job one.

And the hand ringing needs to stop as it was the NORM to add new SC Justices as the Circuit courts grew for most of the SC history and that only stopped recently, leading to huge back logs of cases the SC just has to refuse taking, regardless of merits.



----------------

AI Summary


in the early history of the United States, the number of Supreme Court justices was indeed tied to the number of judicial circuits (then called “circuit courts”) that the justices were responsible for overseeing. Here’s how that worked and when the practice stopped:



🏛️ Early System: Justices “Riding Circuit”​


When the Supreme Court was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, it had 6 justices.


  • The country was divided into 3 judicial circuits (Eastern, Middle, Southern).
  • Each circuit was staffed by 2 Supreme Court justices who “rode circuit” — meaning they literally traveled to preside over circuit court cases in those regions.

So, the number of justices and the number of circuits were linked from the start — not in a one-to-one ratio, but in terms of administrative need.



⚖️ Growth and Matching Pattern​


As the United States expanded westward, Congress added new circuits, and typically added new Supreme Court seats to match.

So for roughly the first 75 years, Congress expanded the Supreme Court in parallel with the circuits.
 
gfm7175 said:
^^^ At least you're being honest about the leftist agenda.

Lie.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are.
Haha
Haha.
 
It would be democratic in that it would take only fifty plus one.

Than it would become authoritarian when the majority made absolute control.

MAGA will do that if able. Of that I have no doubt.

I would hope the dems would be fair, but I am not so sure. The AOCs and Mamdanis, just like the MAGA, would ram down the other sides throat and out their ass.
 
Just my opinion...

There is no legal or procedural barrier preventing Republicans from expanding the Supreme Court (commonly called "court packing") once the ongoing government shutdown ends.

The number of Supreme Court justices is not fixed by the Constitution; Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in "one supreme Court" but leaves the details to Congress.

Congress has changed the Court's size seven times in history (from 6 to 7 in 1789, up to 10 in 1863, down to 7 in 1866, and up to 9 in 1869, where it has remained).

A simple statute passed by Congress and signed by the president (or overriding a veto) is all that's required. No constitutional amendment needed.

Right now, Republicans hold the presidency, a 53-47 Senate majority, and a narrow House majority (219-213).

After the Schumer shutdown ends, Republicans could pass a court-expansion bill on a party-line vote.

"I don't wanna", I hear you say.

I don't, either.

But if we don't, it seems likely that all the things Republicans have accomplished will be undone.

if we don't, all the things Republicans want to accomplish in the foreseeable future won't happen.

"Well, maybe. But, wait", I hear you say.

"The Senate filibuster requires 60 votes"
  • The filibuster applies only to legislative matters; it was eliminated for Supreme Court nominations in 2017 via the "nuclear option" (a simple-majority rules change). Democrats had already done the same thing for lower federal court judges and executive branch nominees in 2013 under Majority Leader Dirty Harry Reid (D-NV). Republicans extended Reid’s precedent to the Supreme Court level.
In short, GOP control of Congress means they face no insurmountable legal or procedural obstacles, as long as Republicans stick together.

Democrats don't have the votes to block it, now.

Granted, tt would mean that the GOP majority in the House would need to stick together, and in the Senate, at least 51 votes would be needed. The GOP has 53 in the Senate. Even if Rand Paul and a couple more sit this one out by voting "present", guess who can vote to break a tie in the Senate?


jd-vance-vp-debate.gif

"But", I hear you wail, "If the GOP succeeds, couldn't Democrats do the same thing the next time they control Congress"?

"Of course", I say.

That's why we gotta do it now.

That's a given in any case. Haven't many Democrats already said they intend to pack the Court as soon as they get the chance?

Why, yes. Yes they have. I have the receipts.

We MUST strike first.

Why?

If the GOP packs the court now, while they can, they can quash a lot of the lawfare that's currently clogging the District Courts with obstructionism.

If the GOP hesitates, they may not get another chance for decades, because the Trump-hating Democrats will raise the bar to 13 or more Justices as soon as they can.

How do I know?

Lots of 'em have said so, and on this question, I believe them.

If we don't try, a generation of Republicans could be shut out of governing.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I'll bet POTUS Trump can light a fire under the GOP's congressional leadership.

At least make the effort, and even if we fail, the hypocritical howling from the Democrats can be used against them when they inevitably begin do the same thing they so recently decried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top