Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Sunday, 31-May-2026 02:22:05 JST Tim Chambers

   Josh isn't wrong. The fillibuster was always a bad idea. Even more damaging in times like these. "In today’s moment there’s an additional factor. If you want to reenforce and reform the federal government to make it more resistant to authoritarian assaults you very literally have to get rid of the filibuster. Otherwise, you’re limiting yourself to only the anti-authoritarian measures the authoritarians will buy into. I can’t accept that. And I can’t accept the idea that we simply do… 🧵 1/2

   • Steve's Place repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Sunday, 31-May-2026 02:22:12 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     …nothing. Getting rid of the filibuster follows necessarily from those two conclusions. On top of that, it shouldn’t exist in the first place. It’s bad constitutionally. It’s bad for Democrats. It’s bad for confidence in civic democracy."
     
     
     🔗 https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/why-the-filibuster-absolutely-has-to-go 🧵 2/2

   • Embed this notice
     TC Won't Give In To Lies (tcatinreality@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 31-May-2026 21:48:49 JST TC Won't Give In To Lies

     in reply to

     @tchambers

     Requiring a supermajority of 60% to pass a law is a perfectly reasonable and democratic requirement, just like requiring two houses to pass a bill.

     The problem of the filibuster is that the US Senate is so deeply unrepresentative and totally captured by business interests.

     If we're making wishes, I would fix the Senate before I worry about the filibuster.

   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Sunday, 31-May-2026 21:48:49 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     • TC Won't Give In To Lies

     @TCatInReality You may have read but Josh's take: "The federal constitution is based on majority rule. Power is dispersed. It’s not supposed to be simple to make big changes. But majorities in the House and the Senate are what the constitution envisions. There are exceptions: treaties, conviction of impeached officials, overriding presidential vetoes, constitutional amendments, et al....It specified what those were. They did not believe that should be required for ordinary legislation.."

   • Embed this notice
     TC Won't Give In To Lies (tcatinreality@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 31-May-2026 23:13:53 JST TC Won't Give In To Lies

     in reply to

     @tchambers

     True. The filibuster is a problem and certainly not what the founders envisioned.

     My point is that repealing/reforming the filibuster is secondary to reforming the Senate itself.

   • Embed this notice
     Tim Chambers (tchambers@indieweb.social)'s status on Sunday, 31-May-2026 23:13:53 JST Tim Chambers

     in reply to

     • TC Won't Give In To Lies

     @TCatInReality That tracks, and what Senate reforms do you see as most strategic? Here are a bunch of ideas i saw a bit ago: https://democracybillofrights.org/how-and-why-to-reform-the-senate/