Filibuster Reform

It seems blatantly obvious the filibuster has outlived its usefulness. It was originally created (it's not enshrined in the Constitution) by the slave states to prevent majority rule from abolishing slavery.

Since then it's been used by all sorts of conservatives to keep the laws out of sync with the public.

During the Trump Administration Yertle created a "carve out" for presidential judicial nominations, allowing Trump to pack the courts nationwide with unqualified ideologues. There's also a "carve out" of sorts in the reconciliation process for budgetary matters, because without it the Senate would never pass a budget.

There's no reason a new carve out couldn't be created for voting rights. They are easily as crucial as a federal budget or judicial nominations.

There's no reason a carve out couldn't be created for health & safety, particularly women's health & safety since it finds itself under attack. Again, easily as important.

Finally, the filibuster used to require a Senator to hold the floor with debate for the duration of the filibuster. It was onerous and not undertaken lightly. I don't know when that provision was jettisoned, but it's a mistake that needs to be corrected.

NoCoPilot wrote:

 There's also a "carve out" of sorts in the reconciliation process for budgetary matters, because without it the Senate would never pass a budget.

Sounds like Steny Hoyer has finally had it with Yertle's shenanigans.  I hope the Dems pull this toy out of his toybox forever.

Joe Manchin has received more campaign contributions from the oil & gas industry than any other Democratic senator, and he averages a half million dollars income per year from the coal company he founded. Obviously, he does not represent the PEOPLE of West Virginia, but rather the energy companies of West Virginia.
https://www.salon.com/2021/10/02/joe-manchin-has-made-52m-from-his-coal-company--and-gets-big-donations-from-fossil-fuel-industry_partner/

So his opposition to the Build Back Better Act, with its emphasis on clean energy and climate change remediation, is at least understandable (if indefensible). But I don't understand why Democrats continue to negotiate with him, continue to let him set the agenda, when he obviously knows which side of his toast is buttered.

A half million dollars per year is insignificant, compared to the $3.5T BBBA. Rather than trying to reason with him, or shame him into doing the right thing, why not buy him out?

Add a provision to the BBBA guaranteeing $500K every year to Joe and his state. Sure, it's corruption but at this stage of the game, that is FAR PREFERABLE to doing nothing on climate change or voting rights. Once his vote is cast, Democrats could primary him and get him removed from office.

But playing his game on his field is getting us nowhere.