According to the Associated Press, President Joe Biden today will support changing the filibuster rule for voting rights legislation — a move widely viewed as effectively killing the rule. The report says that Biden will portray the choice starkly as one between democracy and autocracy. The AP, however, does not reference the third option of hypocrisy by failing to note that Biden vehemently opposed such moves for decades. He previously denounced killing the rule as “disastrous” for our democracy but now will declare the rule itself to be an existential threat to democracy. It is the latest example of President Biden’s embrace of “whatever it takes politics.”
Biden will use a speech at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church to complete his abandonment of his long-held position. AP quotes his expected address to include the following statement:
“The next few days, when these bills come to a vote, will mark a turning point in this nation. Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadow, justice over injustice? I know where I stand. I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend your right to vote and our democracy against all enemies foreign and domestic. And so the question is where will the institution of United States Senate stand?”
Biden showed equal passion as a senator to denounce those who would find excuses for abandoning the filibuster rule. He called such efforts “disastrous” and proclaimed: “God save us from that fate … [it] would change this fundamental understanding and unbroken practice of what the Senate is all about.”
After six months of uncomfortable silence as president, Biden later said that, as president, he continued to support the rule. Putting aside certain factual and historical errors, Biden declared that killing the rule would “throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done. Nothing at all will get done. There’s a lot at stake. The most important one is the right to vote, that’s the single most important one.”
It appears now that, even if “God [might still] save us from that fate,” the President will not.
His colleagues, including then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and now-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), gave equally full-throated endorsements of the rule being denounced today as a thoroughly racist relic. Schumer, who is now also pushing for the change, previously said to abandon the rule would be “doomsday for Democracy” and reduce the United States to a “banana Republic.”
While President Biden may have found his natural resting place in the conflict between politics and principle, the move against the filibuster rule will only aggravate our deep divisions.
The Democrats would force through a sweeping federalization of state election laws for the first time in our history. It would federally preempt the laws in dozens of states and declare that Congress, not state legislatures, will now dictate how people vote in states like Georgia. It is notable that Georgian politicians like Sen. Raphael Warnock will be standing next to Biden in Atlanta as the President calls for setting aside Georgia’s own laws. (Stacey Abrams who is running for governor will not attend the event). Previously, Biden was criticized for misrepresenting the provisions of the Georgia law.
What is most striking is the inherent conflict in this logic. President Biden is going to a state where representatives passed voting rules as part of their democratic process. He is effectively saying that they must protect democracy from itself and support Washington dictating the rules in Georgia.
While denouncing the “Big Lie” of those who questioned the last election, Democrats in the same breath are arguing that the next election might be illegitimate or might be stolen under current election laws. Democratic leaders have insisted that Trump began that Big Lie by seeding doubts months in advance of the 2020 election due to the laws in blue states. Now those leaders are seeding the same doubts about the laws in red states before the 2022 election. (Indeed, despite recent denials, some of these same leaders who denounced the Big Lie are the same people who previously called the Trump election “illegitimate” and some supported challenges to electoral votes in Congress).
It is also worth noting that federal laws already protect against rules that inhibit or curtail the votes of minority citizens. Other laws are subject to judicial review if they curtail the right to vote generally. Indeed, many of these laws are being challenged by Democrats in court. The federal legislation is needed because these laws have been upheld by the courts as constitutional and nondiscriminatory.
For some voters in these states, the federal takeover of their election laws is not likely to resonate as a victory of democracy. Election laws have largely been left to the states in our constitutional system. If those laws are constitutional, the view was that each state could follow its own approach to issues like voter identification rules. While Congress can condition the receipt of federal funds on improving election administration (and reinforce constitutional protections for minority voters through laws like the Voting Rights Act), this is an unprecedented federalization of election laws to dictate how elections are administered.
In abandoning his long-held position, President Biden is choosing divisive politics over principle. This will further deepen the anger and divisions in our country. It will fuel claims that these laws are somehow illegitimate or laying the foundation for autocracy.
I previously wrote why the filibuster rule was designed for times like this:
Pushing through such controversial measures with bare majorities and on straight party lines will only deepen the divisions and increase the rage in this country. So this is precisely a time when the filibuster can play a positive role, by forcing legislation to pass with a modest level of bipartisan support. It requires consensus and compromise at a time of growing, violent division.
…
The filibuster has gone through historic controversies through the centuries, from opposing Caesar to opposing civil rights. But as a consensus-forcing rule, its time may have arrived, to the chagrin of many.
This move may also be soon regretted.
It is not likely to succeed but would put virtually all of the Democratic senators on record for calling for the demise of the rule. With the possible GOP takeover of both houses, the Democrats are sawing at the branch upon which their future may rest.
It was the Democrats who unwisely created the exception to the filibuster for judicial candidates in 2010. The Republicans later used that change as an excuse for an exception for Supreme Court nominees. Nevertheless, the GOP senators refused the demands of President Trump to abandon the rule for legislative matters when they were in the majority. Now, the Democrats would create an exception that could easily result in the total abandonment of the rule.
Since they are unlikely to succeed, it would be better to reaffirm support for the filibuster rule as a protection against losing the Senate in 2022. However, short-term political interests seem to be prevailing. Biden is becoming unpopular with the left and he is now abandoning his prior principled stand for political convenience. It is a Faustian bargain that I expect that the Democrats could soon regret.
Many if not all of the commenters who read Professor Turley’s daily offerings would agree that the 79 year old Joseph R. Biden is not in command of his beliefs as he once was.
Changing one’s mind is not hypocritical if the circumstances change. That’s normal. Turley conflates hypocrisy with changing your mind. Trump did this all the time yet Turley wasn’t calling trump a hypocrite. Trump was a long time supporter of abortion rights. Then he changed his mind to appease his supporters. Was that hypocrisy? According to Turley it certainly is but obviously Turley would never mention it.
Anonymous….why do you persist in talking stupid?
Professor is a Man of Principle….One might change opinions or views on a topic or issue….but One does not change One’s Principles.
That is why a Principled Man (old fashioned usage meaning Human Beings as a Set of all People) cannot be a politician that engages in pure partisan politics…..such as Schumer.
The Senate Filibuster Rule was created to protect the Minority’s ability to engage in debate and provide a method for the Senate to find consensus on issues.
Again…why is that a hard concept for you to grasp?
Attacking Turley does nothing to persuade others to align with your point of view….quite the contrary.
Criticism of Turley’s opinion is fair game.
Ralph Chappell says, “ The Senate Filibuster Rule was created to protect the Minority’s ability to engage in debate and provide a method for the Senate to find consensus on issues.”
I wouldn’t be accusing others of being stupid by letting everyone else know you are being stupid yourself. A filibuster is not a debate. Its the legislative equivalent of a denial of service attack. It’s designed to stop debate by engaging in endless talk not related to the issue. That’s why you have Senators reading green eggs and ham on the floor or endlessly talking about an entirely different issue. When the minority’s only goal is to obstruct it is deliberately abusing the rule’s real intent.
“Turley conflates hypocrisy with changing your mind.”
This is another of ATS’s lies based on word games.
Anonymous, “ This is another of ATS’s lies based on word games.”
Nope. Turley is clearly insinuating Biden changing his mind is hypocritical without substantiating how it is.
“ The AP, however, does not reference the third option of hypocrisy by failing to note that Biden vehemently opposed such moves for decades. He previously denounced killing the rule as “disastrous” for our democracy but now will declare the rule itself to be an existential threat to democracy. It is the latest example of President Biden’s embrace of “whatever it takes politics.”
Turley is clearly accusing Biden of hypocrisy for merely changing his mind. Circumstances have changed the political rhetoric has changed. He labels Biden’s change of mind as hypocrisy when he mentions the third option in the title of his column.
“Democracy, Autocracy…or Hypocrisy? Biden calls for changing the filibuster”
He’s made it pretty clear he’s conflating hypocrisy with changing one’s mind.
Anonymous the Stupid, see above. One can’t tell in advance if this is one of your postings intended to be deleted. In the process, you have caused a lot of other bloggers to be inconvenienced. You should be ashamed of involving others in your idiocy
Biden didn’t change his mind. Hypocrisy might not be the right word, but the point is that Biden was lying when he defended the filibuster before. To him it’s all about steamrolling his political opponents.
“Nope. Turley is clearly insinuating Biden changing his mind is hypocritical without substantiating how it is.”
Anonymous the Stupid, we can’t help that you are ignorant and a liar. Anyone can listen to the videos and hear What Biden said and his reasons. When he changed his mind he never corrected what he said previously. That is typical of Biden, but he has an excuse. He can’t remember what he said yesterday.
As a Democrat Turley isn’t partisan against Biden. He searches for the truth the way he sees it. You don’t search for the truth. You lie without any embarrassment.
Anonymous, “ When he changed his mind he never corrected what he said previously. That is typical of Biden, but he has an excuse. He can’t remember what he said yesterday.”
Well, the whole point of changing your mind is that you no longer believe your previous belief is correct given new circumstances. That’s not hypocrisy as Turley falsely implies.
You’re just upset that you can’t make a substantive argument and therefore you resort to personal attacks and ad hominems. That’s a clear sign of a weak minded individual.
“. . . if the circumstances change.”
The only “circumstance” that changed is that democrats have a slim majority in the Senate, and now want total control over how states conduct elections. The filibuster thwarts that desire — a desire to rig elections — so it has to go.
It just amazes me how Fox News, OAN, News Max, Breitbart and Info Wars manage to convince you Trumpsters that the stupid lies they’ve gotten you to believe are shared by “most” Americans. I guess you have to believe this sh^t in order to buy the Big Lie.
Natch ; It does not amaze me of your leftist hypocrisy and those of your stripe. The leftist POV on this hijack is to virtually burn down the hose to get the mouse. To disregard what a power grab this is for this mentally challenged pres and his horde of handlers is , is to deny that the earth is round .
As if Biden ever was in control of his beliefs….
It is the latest example of President Biden’s embrace of “whatever it takes politics.”
In the fight for “social justice” and “equity” all is good and just. Of course, “whatever it takes”!!!
Be careful for what you wish for s@@tlibs. My guess is you’ll call for a reinstitution of the filibuster after the Republicans take control of congress this fall. All in the name of preserving “our democracy”.
Think otherwise and you are a “nazi”.
I WANT A DIVORCE.
antonio
Marginalization is better than divorce. It makes very plainly their ideas the absurdity that they are. I want to see the modern Dem party reduced in the public consciousness to the college sophomore idiocy that it has become.
It is very simple. Should voters verify identity to reduce fraud? Politician Ds say no, and Rs say yes.
80% of Americans support voter ID.
Those who want to cheat oppose measures that would make it harder.
Voter ID laws are statistically associated with higher turnout, not less.
It is racist to claim that out of all the races and ethnicities in America, blacks are too incompetent to get ID. Of course black people have ID, and they support voter ID laws.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/04/08/voter-id-laws-and-racism-democrats-just-muddling-debate-column/7113493002/
Would you support a national voter ID Card that is free of charge to anyone wanting one?
Anonymous:
States already offer free voter ID.
I would not support a federal voter ID for several reasons. First, it’s possible a far Left administration could create an ID that would only require someone to say that’s their name and they are legally allowed to vote. Or it could go in the other direction and require too much. Second, the Constitution leaves running elections up to the states. Federalizing elections might be unconstitutional. Lastly, as stated above, all states already provide free ID to those who need it, so this is a solution without a problem.
Would you support a drivers license that only asks you to fill out your name, age, and whether you passed the written and driving tests, or a license that verifies all of these? If the former, then getting a fake ID to gain entry to clubs is going to easy.
Karen, “ Second, the Constitution leaves running elections up to the states. Federalizing elections might be unconstitutional.”
The constitution gives congress the power to overrule states election rules thru article 1 section 4. “ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
Karen, all official state ID’s including federal ones require proof of citizenship in order to be issued.
Some states only require proof of residency. So a federal VOTER ID with citizenship requirement AND fingerprint requirements isn’t overly burdensome. The fingerprint requirement would ensure ironclad be verification of identity.
Democrats do not, and have never, opposed verification of identity. They have opposed requiring things that Republicans know some Democratic voters may not have and cannot conveniently get. Republicans refuse to accept, for example, student ID cards, even those with photos. They think of ways to make it more difficult for probable Democrats to vote, and this is intentional, all the while convincing the disciples that what they’re doing is both reasonable and supported by most Americans, while distorting the truth. Democrats do NOT oppose verification of identity, so stop saying they do. They oppose using verification of identity as a tool to prevent probable Democrats from voting.
You want to debate about cheating to win elections? Seriously? What the hell is wrong with you that you cannot see the facts staring you in the face? Beginning with Russia helping Trump cheat to get into office, confirmed by Dan Coats, head of US intelligence, and continuing with Trump’s lie about his “landslide victory” being stolen? Why don’t you believe 50 Secretaries of State, dozens of failed lawsuits, and proof that Trump tried to bully local election officials to falsify voting records? What about Republican gerrymandering, harassing or kicking Democrats off of local election boards to make it easier to cheat, passing laws making it harder to vote and opposing the John Lewis Voter Protection Act?
Balderdash !!!! natcha……. the Dems want unlimited unverified mail in voting…chaos and fraud rampant therein . They want vote harvesting of these absolutely unidentifiable authenticatable ghost ballots . Any other alternate reality take you offer on this is just more smoke and mirrors fraud…lies by any score.
@Randy in Colorado re: “You want to take over federal elections from DC in a 50-50 senate with mail-in balloting and ZERO ID necessary” NTM the explicit allowance for NON-CITIZENS to vote in NYC. How long do you think it would take the Demoncrap carpetbaggers to enshrine that provision in Federally-mandated election law? Then they can import as many voters as they need to win any election. Voters who, I might add, have little or no investment in the outcome. If (when) this country goes completely to shit as the result of them voting to give maximum power to the Demons and unlimited bread and circuses to themselves, they can just take their unearned largess and move along to somewhere else.
It is very simple. When asked “Should all Americans who are legally allowed to vote be able to in a free and fair election without any unnecessary barriers?” The Ds say yes and the Rs say no.
Guys like Sammy want to require a 5 year old to have an ID to eat at Burger King but he opposes an ID for an adult to vote.
That is a lie. What Sammy is looking for is the ability of leftists to harvest votes, buy votes, and resurrect the dead so they can vote Dem. He is a typical fascist even though he doesn’t know what a fascist is. He is dangerous because he will march lockstep with authoritarians who will kill people just to maintain their power.
Smammy… Voter ID and proof of citizenship is NOW considered as “unnecessary barriers” by the leftist’s in our politics ?. Really are you that disingenuous ?.
Biden, like all humans, can learn from experience. He and wife had Hunter be born when there had been a hole in a rubber. Now he ties a sock around the thing and babies are prevented.
Turley is being disingenuous once again.
Is changing one’s mind hypocrisy? Biden like Trump can change his mind on an issue based on changing circumstances. Trump did this all the time. Yet I didn’t see Turley calling Trump a hypocrite.
The filibuster is not a constitutional requirement. It’s an archaic rule created by the senate to prevent open debate on issues a minority didn’t want to discuss. In fact a filibuster is a form of censorship and an infringement on free speech. Maybe Turley wouldn’t be so certain to keep the filibuster if it is used as a tool to stymie the free and open discussion of issues in congress.
Svelaz:
Do you understand the difference between sincerely changing your mind, and hypocrisy?
Dems supported getting rid of the filibuster for federal judicial appointments, but they claimed it was the end of Democracy when Republicans applied their own logic to Supreme Court nominations.
Democrats believed all women who made accusations against Trump and Kavanaugh, but disbelieved all women who made accusations against Biden and other prominent Democrats.
Pelosi was for a wall, then against the wall when the Democrats supported illegal immigrants and the ensuing increase in voters, and then for a wall around the Capitol and her own community. Pelosi didn’t care about shoplifting and smash and grabs until Lois Vuitton got hit.
Lightfoot was for mask mandates, unless she’s at a great Jazz club or party.
AOC was for mask mandates and shutdowns, unless she’s partying in Florida.
Democrats felt it a patriotic duty to challenge elections, bring lawsuits, and call an election stolen with Gore, Hillary Clinton, Stacey Abrams, and every important election they lose, but it’s sedition if a Republican does the same. It will go back to being a patriotic duty to challenge elections the next time they lose an important one.
The difference between changing one’s mind and hypocrisy is when your position keeps changing, depending upon what’s most advantageous to you. If you’ve really changed your mind, then you will remain consistent even when it benefits the opposing party.
Karen,
“ Do you understand the difference between sincerely changing your mind, and hypocrisy?”
Of course I do. But it seems from your many bad examples that you do not.
“ Dems supported getting rid of the filibuster for federal judicial appointments, but they claimed it was the end of Democracy when Republicans applied their own logic to Supreme Court nominations.”
They supported getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations because republicans were always obstructing nominations thru the use of the filibuster. They were abusing it purely for political reasons. Not reasoned disagreement.
Some democrats cried foul over republicans ramming thru their judicial nominations thru majority votes. The irony you seem to be oblivious to is the hypocrisy of republicans complaining about “tyranny of the majority” when they do exactly that in pushing thru their own nominations. THAT is hypocrisy.
“ If you’ve really changed your mind, then you will remain consistent even when it benefits the opposing party.”
You can’t remain consistent if you changed your mind. The whole point of changing your mind is to no longer be consistent in your current belief.
Biden is being a hypocrite as Turley falsely suggests. He’s changed his mind and he’s allowed to just like anyone else.
Trump was once consistently supportive of abortion rights. When he became president he changed his mind. Would you agree that Trump would be deemed a hypocrite according to your own rationale? Yes/no?
Svelaz:
You claimed I gave bad examples. However, you said Democrats supported getting rid of the filibuster because Republicans were obstructing their nominations. Right. Exactly. They supported ending the filibuster because it benefitted them politically, just like they supported the filibuster when it benefitted them politically. If the filibuster was wrong, then why do you think Democrats were incensed when, by the exact same reasoning, Republicans got rid of the filibuster for SCOUS nominations?
That’s exactly what I’m saying. You’re a hypocrite if your opinion on right and wrong changes depending on whom it benefits politically. So how is that a bad example?
Are you saying that Democrats can get rid of the filibuster, but Republicans must not follow their precedent? Republicans would be foolish to play by different rules. That would be like the speed limit for Democrats being 65, but that for Republican would be 55. Republicans might argue for the lower speed limit, but if they lost that argument, then they would want the same rules to apply fairly to all. They’d be stupid to meekly accept a speeding ticket for driving 60 while Democrats drove past at 65. That’s not changing their mind, but wanting the exact same rules to apply to everyone. A hypocrite would be someone who demanded a 100 mph speed limit if he got pulled over, but a 55 mph speed limit when his opponent got pulled over later.
You asked about Trump and abortion, but you said yourself he changed his mind. The only way to tell if he’s a hypocrite would be if he changed his position on abortion regularly, depending on which way benefitted him the most. Since I have not yet seen that, I cannot tell.
Like I said, if you really changed your mind, then you won’t keep flip flopping back and forth depending on how the wind blows. I think you are pretending not to understand the difference between being open to new information that can change your opinion, and constantly reversing yourself depending on political advantage.
Karen, you lack the chops to lecture anyone about anything. You are a deep Trump disciple and depend on alt right news sources for your information and opinions that you regurgitate with regularity. You hate Democrats, especially minority women who are members of Congress (the source of hatred for AOC and others comes directly from alt right sources), and are a master parrot of alt right projection: accusing Democrats of all of the things Republicans are guilty of. You believe whatever alt right op eds you can find and are immune to facts. This has been proven repeatedly.
Karen, I didn’t say anything about democrats, YOU did. I only mention Biden. This is YOUR quote, “ Dems supported getting rid of the filibuster for federal judicial appointments, but they claimed it was the end of Democracy when Republicans applied their own logic to Supreme Court nominations.”
Biden wasn’t flip flopping on the filibuster he was consistent on not getting rid of it until now. Circumstances changed and be no longer supports his previous belief. That’s called changing your mind. Not hypocrisy.
Your examples involve democrats as a whole not Biden which is who I’m talking about and is the subject of the discussion. You’re meandering into over generalizations in trying to justify your poor argument.
“ You asked about Trump and abortion, but you said yourself he changed his mind. The only way to tell if he’s a hypocrite would be if he changed his position on abortion regularly, depending on which way benefitted him the most. Since I have not yet seen that, I cannot tell.”
Then you should research it to find out. Trump didn’t flip flop on his support for abortion rights. He did change his mind once he sought the Republican nomination. That’s hypocritical according to Turley.
They supported getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations because republicans were always obstructing nominations thru the use of the filibuster.
With advice and consent of the Senate. Obama refused the advice part, Therefore the Senate refused the consent part.
Obama refused to negotiate. Refused to consider moderate judicial nominees. But the Democrats become real lame ducks unless the judiciary goes far left and allows Democrats to kill Federalism. ie; FDR
Democrat politicians oppose verifying identity, unless it’s at their own convention or events. Then it’s required. Because…fraud and Project Veritas.
Svelaz, if there is a change of mind, then Democrats need to explain why all their prior points were wrong. They don’t. Instead they provide hollow meaningless arguments.
You fall for this cr-p because you lack the ability to think for yourself.
Anonymous (SM),
“ Svelaz, if there is a change of mind, then Democrats need to explain why all their prior points were wrong. They don’t. Instead they provide hollow meaningless arguments.”
Nobody is obligated to explain why they change their minds. Democrats prior points were not wrong because the circumstances were different or the issue was different. When circumstances change they can also change their minds if those circumstances no longer support their previous position.
Your difficulty in understanding is solely on your own inability to grasp this simple concept.
Republicans don’t have to explain why they change their minds either and most of the time they do. Look at Ted Cruz, he called the Jan 6 rioters domestic terrorists. He changed his mind about it didn’t he? Did he fully explain it? Not really. But he clearly provided a very hollow explanation as to why. Obviously he’s entitled to being able to change his mind, so is Biden. That doesn’t make him a hypocrite as Turley falsely suggests.
Svelaz, go away, you are an idiot and a waste of time.
“Nobody is obligated to explain why they change their minds.”
If that is the case then no one need worry about calling them hypocrites. (Is that too difficult for you to understand?)
Ted Cruz was wrong. His statement was false and his explanation was poor. He will have to live with it. Democrats try not to live with it by lying. They figure Stupid people like you will believe them.
Considering the testimony today of the FBI by Ted Cruz, it does seem like there were terrorists there….THE FBI WHO INFILTRATED.
Nobody is obligated to explain why they change their minds.
And nobody is obligated to reach any conclusion, bu hypocrisy, without a principled response.
Sevkllas ; It is you whom are completely disingenuous here ..again. The filibuster has been a tool to protect the minority party and virtually keep the peace and some form of sanity. And yet again the party of the SHeeple now deem it racist and obstructionist because yet again they cant get their way. So tell us again how fair and oh so demokratik the left is again…yeah thought so as you can’t.
As usual the Good Professor strikes the nail squarely upon its head!
“It is not likely to succeed but would put virtually all of the Democratic senators on record for calling for the demise of the rule. With the possible GOP takeover of both houses, the Democrats are sawing at the branch upon which their future may rest.
It was the Democrats who unwisely created the exception to the filibuster for judicial candidates in 2010. The Republicans later used that change as an excuse for an exception for Supreme Court nominees. Nevertheless, the GOP senators refused the demands of President Trump to abandon the rule for legislative matters when they were in the majority.” .
That folks clearly shows the difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress…..particularly the Senate.
Think back to McConnell telling Pinky Reid not to change the Senate Rules on voting for Judges and Justices….clearly warning Pinky of the fact that he was going to regret doing so.
That advice and clear warning fell upon very deaf ears…..Pinky and his fellow Democrats were insistent upon getting their way and Rules were not going to stand. in their way.
Fast forward to the Garland Nomination by Obama….and all of the many Judges nominated by Trump to include three Supreme Court Justices…..McConnell was exactly right…..and Pinky Reid was exactly wrong (as were every Democrat that voted for that Rule Change).
Now Scumer and the some Democrats in the Senate want to have another go at this stupidity……as they know….with absolute certainty they are going to be out of power due to the Nation’s rejection of their radical Leftist Agenda.
They shall (imperative tense used on purpose) do anything to stay in power but forget that Saw cuts both ways…..as it did on Judicial Nominations.
Simple Democracy, without measures to protect the Minority, always fails.
Look to Venezuela and see how the once richest Nation in South America has fared under that system……is that what we want for the United States….and your Children and Grand Children?
The Democrats are already trying to subvert the coming Election….and further causing very bold black lines to be drawn about their misconduct.
You want to see a real Insurrection and not the imaginary one the Democrats are pimping…..the kind that includes a few Million pissed of People with guns…..let the Democrats continue down this road to Perdition they are taking.
When they do try to take this vote thinking the Vice President can be their Tie Breaker and key to success….. but see three or more moderate Senators refuse to go along with this latest scheme of Schumers……perhaps in the next Congress when controlled by the Republicans….we might see a move to make those Senators who voted for killing the Filibuster Rule called out for joining in Rebellion and thus be not eligible to hold or run for Office…..and see how they like those Apples!
After all….the Democrats seem to enjoy setting Precedent in changing how the Senate conducts itself in order to gain some temporary gain but does so with long term loss as a direct result.
So because democrats got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court justice nominations it gave republicans the opportunity to abuse it? Yet I don’t see Turley or any other conservatives complaining about tyranny of the majority here.
In disagreeing with the elimination of the filibuster then you would be ok with democrats using it against Republicans if they gain majority rule in the mid terms?
What would stop republicans from eliminating it themselves given that they are not exactly known for keeping their word. Mitch McConnell had already done this multiple times when he’s reneged on sticking to his own rationales.
Anonymous the Stupid again…..one must ignore words and focus upon actions in order to evaluating politicians.
The Republicans have been staunchly opposed to doing away with the Filibuster and proved that by their actions when in a strong majority position….and could. have changed it had they wanted…..but did not.
The Democrats on the other hand….only want to change the Filibuster when they are the majority party and not when they are in the minority…..as proven by their actions.
The Democrats under Pinky Reid did change the Filibuster Rule for Judicial Nominations…..despite being warned about how that was a grave mistake.
Agains….Actions not Words is what matters….and the Democrats indict themselves, their motives, their ethics, and their character by their ACTIONS.
What is it you cannot grasp about reality?
Ralph Chappell,
“ The Republicans have been staunchly opposed to doing away with the Filibuster and proved that by their actions when in a strong majority position….and could. have changed it had they wanted…..but did not.”
They are only opposed to eliminating the filibuster when they don’t want the ability to stop certain legislation from passing. They have not been opposed to taking advantage when democrats can’t filibuster legislation THEY want to pass.
The only reason republicans oppose eliminating the filibuster is when democrats have a clear advantage in passing legislation they want. It’s a risk many democrats believe is worth it. Republicans can always institute the filibuster again anytime they want when they are in the majority. Of course it would be stupid to do so. Wouldn’t it? Because then THEY would be happily ruling by tyranny of the majority as they already do in state legislatures.
Democrats could in theory get rid of the filibuster just to pass the voting rights act and reinstate it before the midterms. Nothing in the constitution prevents them from doing that.
“The Democrats under Pinky Reid did change the Filibuster Rule for Judicial Nominations…..despite being warned about how that was a grave mistake.
Agains….Actions not Words is what matters….and the Democrats indict themselves, their motives, their ethics, and their character by their ACTIONS.“
Yes they did, precisely because they could and because they were in the majority. It was a risk for them to make.
If they get rid of the filibuster and pass the voting rights act it’s entirely their right to do so. Republicans can always repeal it whenever they get back in the majority. The risk will be in being seen against voting rights. That’s why they are afraid of democrats getting rid of the filibuster, because it will make them look really bad if they try to repeal a law meant to make voting easier.
“Yes they did, precisely because they could and because they were in the majority. It was a risk for them to make.”
That is right. They did it for themselves, not for the country or American citizens. They lusted for power and did it. Who else lusted for power? Stalin and Hitler. Get the association? Anonymous the Stupid stands on the side of Stalin and Hitler based on his own words.
Anonymous, “ That is right. They did it for themselves, not for the country or American citizens.”
They did it for THEIR constituency. The ones THEY represent. It’s not a “lust” for power. It’s a right they have because they are in the majority. The majority makes the rules and if they agree on a set of laws or rules that the majority vote and the minority doesn’t have the votes to prevent that is exactly what democracy is.
If democrats had supermajorities in both houses and the presidency they can pass any laws they want within constitutional limits. They could even vote to eliminate the filibuster entirely. Republicans sure would if they were in that position. Especially with a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
Response to Anonymous the Stupid comment is likely to be deleted.
“They did it for THEIR constituency.”
Learn one thing, politicians of both sides do things for themselves. The problem is Democrats of today have no self-restraint and are bringing us in the direction of totalitarianism. Americans have always worried about too much power in the hands of a few. That is what we are seeing today, and it leads to despotism.
You have no understanding of what the founders saw when they wrote the Constitution. You are an ignorant ideologue.
Anonymous:
You should note that even when the Court leaned Left, Republicans did not make a move to expand the Court in order to pack it, when they were in power.
There are subtle indications that Democrats expect Republicans to hold themselves to a higher standard than them. For instance, Democrats didn’t blink an eye when Kathy Griffin held up Trump’s severed head in effigy, Madonna dreamed of blowing up the White House, Johnny Depp fantasized about assassination, Pelosi said “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings. Maybe there will be.” Kamala Harris said the violent Leftist protests “should continue, and will continue…so beware.” Maxine Waters said to find people who work for Trump “make a crowd, and make sure they know they aren’t welcome anywhere, anymore.” The supported BLM’s violent riots, looting, and arson, even bailing rioters out of jail. Leftist violence gripped Blue cities for over a year. They supported the violent takeover of city blocks in Seattle, held as “autonomous zones” for a year. Violence and violent rhetoric were considered patriotic. They opposed defending federal buildings, or calling in the National Guard, as Fascist. Calling Republicans racist, homophobes, Nazi, sub human, Neanderthals, deplorable, white supremacists, and other slurs was great.
But if Trump made a mean Tweet or was inarguably rude, that was beyond the pale. A threat to Democracy. Shocking beyond all measure. But when one group of Trump supporters barged into the Capitol building, took selfies, broke some windows, illegally paraded, and interrupted the proceeding, that was sedition, a Constitutional Crisis, an insurrection. Republicans rightly condemned the trespassers, but most did not inflate their crimes. The perpetrators spent 9 months in solitary confinement while awaiting trial for trespassing and illegally parading. The National Guard, that was Fascist if it opposed Leftist rioters, guarded the Capitol along with razor wire, to prevent any Republican voter from every rudely interrupting Congress and posing for selfies ever again.
Meanwhile, the Left caused inconceivable property damage, drove minority owned businesses under, assaulted and murdered cops, burned a police precinct, created an autonomous zone where the police were barred from responding to homicide or rape…
Don’t believe rhetoric. Believe action. Action is what tells the truth.
Karen, “ Anonymous:
You should note that even when the Court leaned Left, Republicans did not make a move to expand the Court in order to pack it, when they were in power.”
They didn’t have to. Because they were already busy stacking the lower courts with their nominees. They were consistently blocking president Obama’s appointees to the lower courts.
Republicans kept many judicial appointments open as long as possible in order to be able to fill those positions with conservative leaning judges.
Karen: the degree of your delusions is just amazing. Tell us, are Kathy Griffin, Madonna or Johnny Depp members of Congress? Might want to check with Hannity. You criticize these celebrities, but ignore the antics of Marjorie Taylor Greene, who actually advocated for starting another Civil War, and who chased a school shooting victim down a Washington DC street, screaming at him that he was a plant by anti gun lobbyists. She went to AOC’s office with a camera person in tow, banged on the door, demanding that she engage in a debate, and because the door was locked, opened the mail slot and yelled at AOC to “change her diaper” and come out to debate with her. She also claimed that “Jewish space lasers” caused California wild fires and advocated for violence against other members of Congress, which got her kicked off of committees. What do you have to say about Marjorie Taylor Greene, who IS a member of Congress? crickets.
The Democrat party and Kamala Harris and Maxine Waters do not, and have never, endorsed VIOLENT rioting or looting. And, no matter how many times you try to downplay the facts, the Capitol was invaded by Trump supporters for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power because your hero refuses to admit that he was rejected by the majority of American voters. Donald Trump called for his disciples to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, after going on a campaign of lying about his “victory” being stolen and failing to get Biden’s victory overturned in courts or by bullying election officials. He let it go on for hours because he enjoyed the power he cheated to get and the adulation of his fans. If you don’t find that repulsive to democracy, there’s something wrong with you. The riots that turned violent after the murder of George Floyd have no comparison. No Democrat fomented these demonstrations or encouraged followers to “fight like hell”.
They could have abolished it in 2018 to fast track a bill yo repeal Obamacare.
They did not.
“ After all….the Democrats seem to enjoy setting Precedent in changing how the Senate conducts itself in order to gain some temporary gain but does so with long term loss as a direct result.”
Congress is free to make its own rules. This is actually in the constitution itself. Section 4 of Article One grants the states the power to regulate the congressional election process but establishes that Congress can alter those regulations or make its own regulations.
If the majority chooses to get rid of the filibuster it can do so anytime. If republicans don’t want democrats to do that they can always restore it when they gain a majority. But that is not going to happen because they will be taking advantage of it and…rule by tyranny of the majority which is what they already do in state legislatures.
That temporary gain will give democrats the ability to pass the voting rights act over the objections of the states in the minority. That’s how democracy works. If republicans gain the majority they can always repeal the law.
We are at a tipping point. If we do not have a new voting rights law then the Rs will enshrine permanent minority rule and thus end American democracy.
Gaslighting alert! Please stop with the hyperbole. You want to take over federal elections from DC in a 50-50 senate with mail-in balloting and ZERO ID necessary, and yet accuse Republicans of “enshrining permanent minority rule”? Please, can we speak some truth?
Sammy is back promoting the same BS as he does with his other names.
The filibuster is not used as an on-off switch only when it benefits certain people. That is how the Democrats have used the filibuster. They want a Democrat filibuster that cannot be used by anyone else. That is what Harry Reid did when he removed the filibuster for Federal Judges. It’s OK for Democrats to enter the House and stop proceedings but not for anyone else. It’s OK for Democrats to Bork people but not anyone else.
Democrats play a dirty game. I’m not in love with the Republican game, but it is not as dirty or hypocritical as the Democrat game.
Though it saddens me since I often split my vote between parties, today, to preserve the American representative constitutional government, we need people to refuse to vote Democrat until that party learns to adhere to the Constitution and American values.
S. Meyer says, “ The filibuster is not used as an on-off switch only when it benefits certain people. That is how the Democrats have used the filibuster. ”
Republicans have used it just as you describe too.
“ we need people to refuse to vote Democrat until that party learns to adhere to the Constitution and American values.”
Democrats are adhering to the constitution. The constitution allows the majority party to set the rules any time. Including changing or removing the filibuster rule.
If they want to do that they are indeed adhering to what the constitution allows them to do.
Anonymous the Stupid, you talk, talk and talk without saying anything. That is a sign of Stupidity. Let us hear from you where Republicans ended the filibuster to pass rules or laws that weren’t following prior use of the filibuster by Democrats.
Let’s think about how the filibuster can be beneficial. It creates compromise. The worst use of the filibuster I can remember in our recent lifetimes was the rejection of civil rights laws. That was Democrats that used the filibuster. Republicans wanted the civil rights legislation passed but didn’t remove the filibuster.
Take note, I differentiate today’s Democrat from the Democrat of the past that was pro-American and pro-civil liberties. Today, they are wannabe dictators.
We are at a tipping point. If we do not have a new voting rights law then the Rs will enshrine permanent minority rule and thus end American democracy.
The federal govt is designed to be a govt of strictly limited power, with ONLY enumerated powers. The States are the fail safe against a corrupt federal government.
(I truly wish we would go back to teaching civics)
Smammy you are being incredulously deceptive and purveying outright lies. The filibuster protects the minority party…and somehow you root for the barely minority party to take a nuclear option so they rule in perpetuity ?. My lord man your hypocrisy has no shame…nor limit.
As I’ve mentioned before, Biden has always been just the East-Coast bagman for corporate interests. The same could be said for Kamala and the tech corporations. That’s why those same ugly interests forced Joe to take her after Joe ran out of East-Coast money.
Joe has already organized a witch hunt for people who don’t want the vaccine that isn’t actually a vaccine, and he did it just to change the subject from Afghanistan. Nothing like a good witch hunt to arouse the cannibals on the left. I actually worked. The media is now participating enthusiastically in hunting down the unvaccinated.
Now Joe is appeasing his radical base, again, by threatening the filibuster so the Democrats can kill chain-of-custody balloting nationwide. Nothing surprises me when it comes to Biden. Incredible that this corrupt and vindictive pol sat in judgement of Richard Nixon.
Even more insane that he sat in judgement of Clarence Thomas.
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/cdc-director-echoes-covid-lockdown-skeptics-even-agency-promotes?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Medical experts shred latest CDC COVID-19 study, even as agency director echoes lockdown skeptics
Also take note the MMWR is not peer reviewed, but published as gospel.
“For the second time in less than a month, medical experts pounced on the methodology of a study published in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is not peer-reviewed.”
The imperfection (politics) of government agencies is highlighted multiple times in this report.
These reports from JTN are interesting because they cover a wide-birth of topics and provide more information in their links of where they got their data from.
There is growing evidence that the lockdowns weren’t just ineffective, but even counterproductive. Nobody should censor this debate, but the MSM and social media will try to censor, regardless of the truth.
Diogenes, If I remember correctly, the vast majority of experts believed that lockdowns couldn’t work based on the Spanish Flu, multiple studies and logic. Even the WHO initially opposed the lockdowns. (Were they under the thumb of the Chinese?) Suddenly there was a shift in policy with NO NEW EVIDENCE.
Does that make sense? No. Then what was the reason?
This is why reasonable people are trusting the CDC less and less. The CDC is often wrong or contradicting themselves, and when they’re wrong, they’re always wrong to the left, never to the right. They’re less interested in the truth than they are in politics and that applies to most issues in science and academia today, not just the CDC.
Well, maybe it’s time for Manchin, Sinema, and yes Hickenlooper to stand up and be counted as “NO”…?
“Will we choose democracy over autocracy . . .”
Demagogues use scary sounding words (“autocracy”) to terrorize the unthinking and to keep them passive.
Can anyone, though, explain the “reasoning” behind the following? (Or even hazard a guess?) —
An “autocracy” is absolute rule by one person, e.g., emperor, king, tsar. How, exactly, does abolishing the filibuster protect America from being an autocracy?
If anything, the filibuster protects rule by the many (60), as opposed to by the few(er) (51).
Sam, the filibuster is not even in the constitution. It’s an archaic rule created by congress. It’s not really a requirement at all nor a necessity. Southern legislators often abused the filibuster to stop civil rights legislation from passing.
The majority is the body that sets the rules and in a representative democracy any majority sets the rules.
“ If anything, the filibuster protects rule by the many (60), as opposed to by the few(er) (51).”
The filibuster is ABUSED by the minority in order avoid the vote of the majority. The whole point of a democracy is that the votes of the majority overrule those of the minorities.
If those in the minority don’t like the outcome they can work towards gaining more members to constitute a majority so THEY can incorporate THEIR choices.
Majoritarianism is not democracy! Common confusion, though.
“ Majoritarianism is not democracy! Common confusion, though.”
It actually is. The whole point of a democracy is about one set of votes outnumbering another.
It’s on every facet of our nation’s political functions. From school boards to congressional votes. Remember, the repeal of Obamacare was thwarted by one vote which constituted a majority against repeal.
It seems republicans don’t want democracy they want authoritarian rule. They only like democracy when they wield majority rule.
the filibuster is not even in the constitution. It’s an archaic rule created by congress.
Oh, it’s not in the constitution you say. Well gosh, neither is the state of California or the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Are you suggesting they should be eliminated because they aren’t in the constitution? On a serious note, Art. I Sec 5 provides each house of Congress to establish their own rules and proceedings. The filibuster is such a rule.
The filibuster is ABUSED by the minority in order avoid the vote of the majority. The whole point of a democracy is that the votes of the majority overrule those of the minorities.
Up until a cup of coffee ago, Democrats, with few exceptions believed the filibuster was a vital rule. It is a rule that encourages compromise. It stops radical transformation and it protects state rights from being trampled by federal overreach. If it appears to you to being abused, then take a look at why it has become used more often. That’s right, it has been used to stop the progressive/socialist agenda.
Olly,
“ It is a rule that encourages compromise.”. It supposed to do that, BUT it’s never done that. It’s been used as a weapon instead of forcing a compromise.
“ If it appears to you to being abused, then take a look at why it has become used more often. That’s right, it has been used to stop the progressive/socialist agenda.”
So what happened to the “compromise”? Republicans certainly haven’t offered credible compromises. They’ve used the filibuster to obstruct. That’s not seeking compromise.
It supposed to do that, BUT it’s never done that. It’s been used as a weapon instead of forcing a compromise.
You’re kidding, right? Any Senate legislation subject to the filibuster rule, that gets passed, very likely required compromises.
Democrats used filibuster 327 times, compared to only once by GOP in 2020
It is now being used to allow the minority to thwart the desires of the majority
Read Federalist 51
James Madison spends a good deal of this Paper clarifying his ideas on tyranny of the majority.
One of the reasons he preferred to have the States involved instead of one National Government was that it created more interest groups. The more interest groups involved, the less likely one larger group would completely absolve control of the government.
Gosh I am shocked Democrats want to strip enumerated powers from the States!
The filibuster is not a constitutional requirement or an enumerated power.
States send their representatives to congress to decide over national issues. If a majority of those representatives agree on an issue or legislation and vote they are by the very definition of democracy to have that choice overrule the losing vote of the minority.
Republicans do this in state legislatures all the time. Rule by the majority. At the federal level it should be no different.
Iowan2,
“ Gosh I am shocked Democrats want to strip enumerated powers from the States!”
They can if they are in the majority in congress. In fact the constitution allows this. Article 1 section 4.
“ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
Shelby County v Holder, defined congress role as being limited to protecting voters rights. Not in the manner state legislators run elections.
What the Democrats call “voter suppression” means requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship. So when they claim that Republicans “strive to disenfranchise millions,” you can just ignore the lies and hyperbole and mark them as tools of the party. The reason Schumer, Obama and Biden have to use such hyperbolic language is that they really have no case for their federalization bill, and they can’t take the chance that, in a reasoned debate, their true motives will be exposed. In fact, the primary agenda of the Dems is federalization of most state functions, from health care to education to voting to policing. The Dems are moving closer to a one-party dictatorship now than at any previous time in history.
No. That is a Republican lie. The Ds see voter suppression as an issue that is far wider then voter ID.
But, Sammy can’t attach significant data to his claim, yet there is significant data that demonstrates Democrats under Elias have pushed laws and efforts to promote ballot harvesting and other types of voting that destroys the ability to identify Democrat crooks that have violated election law.
Ballot harvesting is legal in many states.
The left and Democrats are hypocrites. They have no principles.
So when republicans got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court justices were they being hypocritical too?
Anonymous the Stupid, I am not happy with what the Republicans did, but they were following suit and logically following the trend Democrats, under Harry Reid, set.
I want such changes in the rules not to occur immediately so that when people vote on the rule, they recognize the change is for the long-term future. That takes out some of the risks of gaming the system. You don’t care about gaming the system as long as your ideology wins. That is why your ideas are so similar to those of the Nazis.
Anonymous, I’m assuming you’re anonymous the stupid as well, so you agree republicans are just as hypocritical as democrats and deserve the same criticism?
“ You don’t care about gaming the system as long as your ideology wins. That is why your ideas are so similar to those of the Nazis.”
Anonymous, speaking of stupid, you don’t know what my ideology is or what I want. I don’t agree with gaming the system, but obviously republicans love doing that too. Based on your pithy rationale republican ideas are also similar to those of the Nazis.
So when republicans got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court justices were they being hypocritical too?
NO. Republicans promised they would include SCOTUS approvals when Republicans took power of the Senate. It was a threat, in an effort to maintain the status quo. Following through on a promise is the opposite of hypocrite.
Jonathan asks in the blog title, “Democracy, Autocracy . . . or Hypocrisy?
The answer is “Yes”.
Holmes, what was your view three years ago?
Make No Mistake: Democrats are the authoritarian threat to democracy. They want to eliminate the Senate filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, get rid of the Senate parliamentarian, and do away with the Electoral College. They lie about election laws: Georgia’s election laws are virtually the same as Delaware’s except Georgia allows for more drop boxes. In 2013 Democrats eliminated the 60-vote rule to approve federal judges and it resulted in Republicans putting in three Supreme Court judges. Removing the Senate filibuster will also hurt them eventually, but they are ruthless in both words and actions to get what they want with the slightest majority.
None of what you state even comes close to being authoritarian. SCOTUS is already packed for Rs. The EC is undemocratic and needs to go.
The United States are not founded as a democracy but as a republic. Our founding fathers were mistrustful of democracy. Their genius was the concept of balance of powers, including between big states and smaller states. The EC reflects that.
“Their genius was the concept of balance of powers, including between big states and smaller states.”
Double Dutch is correct. The founders spent a lot of time balancing that power to prevent any individual, group, entity, etc., from gaining too much power. That is a problem with Democracy, the tyranny of the majority that can lead to more tyranny and a permanent dictatorship. The founders made things difficult to do so that it would take time before making important decisions, hoping that clearer heads would appear with time.
The Democrats are pushing for dictatorship by one party, which becomes an oligarchy. That is what we see in today’s White House though its power is not absolute.
The hypocrisy of these people is stunning.
They will do anything to try to keep power – even if it means pawning their souls.
If you have any doubts, just read the posts of our resident Lefties.
Dishonest, deluded, and manipulative.
And mostly wrong.
Dear Professor, I’m sure you kniw this but just in case you don’t know, the filibuster is a senate rule. It is not a constitutional requirement! It is now being used to allow the minority to thwart the desires of the majority not just about voting on a bill to air differences in public but rather to stop debate completely! As Republicans around the county strive to disenfranchise millions for the public purpose of winning elections against the will of the people, give the faux outrage over the desire to end and or modify the way the filibuster is used now.
I agree that protecting a dead person’s right to vote is vitally important to maintaining the Republic
Yeah, it’s easy to find the unprincipled political hacks in this case. Thanks for raising your hand.
New day, New 24 hour news cycle. Same lie
As Republicans around the county strive to disenfranchise millions for the public purpose of winning election
I know you are a troll. You just keep repeating the same lie. I’ll repeat the same response to your lie. Name one thing that accomplishes what you claim. The disenfranchisement of millions.
As a side note, I have noticed the leftist have STOPPED using gerrymandering, as a Republican evil. Now that all the states have re-aligned districts, and Democrats are still the unchallenged gerrymandering virtuosos.
Uh oh, no likes for you Holmes. Blue states and Democrats wish to play the CRAM IT game with Republicans. As mentioned by Professor Turley, this causes huge division even greater than we have at present. Please stop with the gaslighting. It is nauseating.
Agreed. The age old saying of “the more things change the more they remain the same “. Same old bait and switch hypocrisy of the demorkratik left .