dobrojim wrote:So the obvious question is can Manchin and Sinema be convinced to
support repeal of filibuster? One thing that has not been given much
coverage is what filibuster reforms might look like. Norm Ornstein
has written about this. You could go back to the days when filibustering
required physical stamina. My own preference would be to have a sliding
scale of votes needed to break the filibuster starting at sixty but diminishing
over a period of weeks until it reaches a simple majority.
The efforts to suppress voting are unspeakably disgusting. The main hope
there being that the harder they try to suppress, the more determined
the intended targets of that suppression must be.
Manchin is an unrepentant ****, the whole Neera Tanden situation is proof of that. I don’t actually think there’s much you can do to move Manchin because he probably doesn’t seek re-election. Other than threaten committee assignments or offer to direct a ton of money to West Virginia I don’t think there’s anything that moves Manchin.
Sinema confuses the hell out of me because she seems to be moving in the opposite direction of her states electorate.
What’s not talked about enough is that the Senate can choose to eliminate the filibuster for whatever bill they want. It’s not an all or nothing approach. So you could remove it for Democracy reform but keep it for infrastructure spending. But yeah you can start by forcing Senators to be in person to filibuster and make the rules so they have to speak on the actual topic.
