You know things never stay the same. Reid and Schumer pushed for the nuclear option, I would guess when they first used it, none of them ever thought it would be used against them. We have Kavanaugh and Barrett on the SCOTUS because of Reid's precedence setting first use. It's a slippery slope.

At sometime in the future you'll have a Republican president and the house and senate controlled by the GOP. When that happens, they can do exactly what they want. Sometimes it's better to step back and think a bit. Is a short term political gain worth what the future may hold?

these things have a habit of coming back and biting one in the butt. Which was exactly what the nuclear option did. Yes, Schumer has the votes to end the filibuster. He can do so at anytime he wants. You can make the senate a mini version of the House. Where knee jerk reactions become the law of the land.

Schumer first use of the nuclear option was a huge mistake. I wonder if he will look back on that huge mistake or just plunge ahead and make another.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312540-schumer-regrets-dems-triggering-nuclear-option

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ch...eatest-mistake/

What happens, happens. But you can bet your bottom dollar that when the GOP takes full control they'll be repealing legislation after legislation passed by the democrats and passing their own. Of course when the democrats regain full control, they'll do the same. There'll be no moderation what so ever, just huge lunges left and right.

If that is what is wanted, so be it.

They don’t filibuster now; they threaten to filibuster then take a cloture vote on the hypothetical filibuster.

I think two simple rule changes will return the filibuster to its historical roots: a rarely used tactic to prevent a bare majority from bulldozing through a hasty and unpopular bill.

1) if you filibuster, you have to filibuster: Talk until you can’t talk anymore. When you yield, debate is closed (if no one else has already been acknowledged by the president) and an up or down vote taken.

2) If a senator is not present for a cloture vote, that senator’s vote counts to cloture. (If one believes debate must continue, than one should bother to show up and vote accordingly.)

I suspect that Mitch is just trying to figure out just how far he can go. He is pretty good at that. Now, however, its time that the Dems stand up and put a stop to the blather and get on with what needs to be done instead of playing Mitch's game.

Don't think for a second that McTurtle would not end the filibuster if he was in charge and it suited him. Also don't think for a second that Schumer could pass anything he liked if the filibuster was gone. He would still have to convince a majority of Senators and Harris it was a good bill. Some of those Democrats from conservative states are not going to go along with anything too upsetting to their constituents.

The kind of things Schumer could pass are those bills that are popular with a majority of Americans. Like raising the minimum wage and fixing ACA. Some bills McTurtle has blocked are actually popular with a majority of Republicans! He prevented them from coming to a floor vote because he knew they would pass. In my opinion that was defeating the function of the Senate for partisan gain.

Making filibusters more difficult and time-limited would preserve their ability to prevent the majority from ramming through bills with no objection. If objections were real and brought up points that should be considered, bills could be modified and put through the process again. The way they work now is with the objections being "We don't like it." or simply "We don't like you."

Actual conviction for Trump's impeachment is not that important, as long as he gets indicted and convicted for giving aid or comfort to insurrectionists. The sentence could even be a $1 fine and probation, though loss of his pension would be more appropriate. Under the 14th Amendment, that would make him ineligible to run again.

How long will it take to gather four more senators from the states of Washington DC and Puerto Rico? Hell, I'd even trade them a West Virginia in the deal, and still be a head!

Manichean

I learned a new word today Manichean, I read it and thought it was a play on words regarding our "democratic" senator from West Virginia, butt no!



I think it WOULD be an appropriate description!
TAT

One of the Christian sects (Manicheanism) exterminated by the Paulines espoused a dualist spin on the teachings of Joshua bar-Yosef. Of course, a sect that sees a strict divide between good and evil hardly fits in well with the varying narratives required to maintain a widespread empire. Much better to have a pile of taboos to shuffle through as needed and get-out-of-jail cards for the well heeled and well connected (dense rituals/confession/absolution/indulgences) while palming off a coming paradise on the downtrodden to look forward to and stop them from whining about how unfair it all is.

For more information on Mani and the religion he founded, you can look up Manichean Heresy. (Winners always write the history books.)

It was popular from Spain to China. Saint Augustine was actually a Manichean before he converted. Not really so far-fetched because they said Jesus was a perfect being filled with God's light, and believed everything physical was ruled by Satan. More or less it incorporated ideas from Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.

I think it was Saint Augustine who also said something like; "If you think God is thinking of you then you are committing the sin of pride". (I often wondered what he would think if you thought God was talking to you)