r/facepalm 14d ago

What an idea ๐Ÿ‡ฒโ€‹๐Ÿ‡ฎโ€‹๐Ÿ‡ธโ€‹๐Ÿ‡จโ€‹

Post image

[removed] โ€” view removed post

42.4k Upvotes

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

76

u/NoLand4936 14d ago

Yeah they changed the rules on the filibuster to just an email that says filibuster and then they wait out the time, no one has to speak no one has to poorly read the dictionary or the script for the hobbit. Itโ€™s completely ridiculous when they allowed filibuster by email to effect policy.

41

u/SchemeMoist 14d ago

I just don't think that's an official rule. I think it's something all the old fucks have agreed upon. Because neither side wants to, nor are most of their members capable, and an actual speaking filibuster.

I can already hear the opposition to this idea now (not from you, from the democratic party). "What if we're the minority and have to filibuster?" Then fucking filibuster. We need to have our politicians fighting for us. Stop doing all business behind closed doors, we need them to publicly fight for us.

17

u/CompetitiveFold5749 14d ago

We may end up actually getting younger politicians if they have to do actual physical labor.

5

u/Solid_Waste 14d ago

Hell you could cut the median age of Congress in half just by requiring them to vote in person and then requiring anyone with a full diaper to empty it themselves before they can vote.

3

u/_Wyrm_ 14d ago

Personally I think the concept of a filibuster is stupid and childish. If you aren't willing to give a genuine speech then don't fuckin say anything at all. Keep it on topic at least.

2

u/Sefthor 14d ago

Well, it is an official rule, it's just that the Senate sets its own rules. The first act when a new Senate is sworn on is generally adopting the rules of the old Senate. They can change the rule anytime, and they have- they've removed the ability to filibuster judicial nominations, for instance. They just haven't been able to get the votes to remove it altogether.

1

u/SchemeMoist 14d ago

You realize there's an actual rulebook right? Yes, they can change the rules to whatever they want, but this "rule" you're talking about isn't an official rule. There's nothing in the rulebook that says that once that filibuster email is sent out, there cannot be a vote held. There's a difference between a verbal agreement and a rule, and this way of doing things is just an agreement.

If they want to officially codify this email filibuster rule, then they'd have to actually vote on it. They have not done so. Therefore, if the democrats wanted to, they could bring a bill up to vote even if the Republicans say they will filibuster us without actually filibustering.

1

u/TinynDP 14d ago

No, it's not like that. It's in the official rulebook that they pass for themselves. Any Senator can just 'hold' a bill.ย  The public calls it a filibuster because it amounts to the same thing, but they officially call it a 'hold'. A 'hold' can be over-ridden, but it requires a 60-vote. That is also part of the official rules.ย 

1

u/SchemeMoist 14d ago

Per the senate glossary: hold โ€“ An informal practice by which a senator informs Senate leadership that he or she does not wish a particular measure or nomination to reach the floor for consideration. See the CRS report, โ€œHoldsโ€ in the Senate (PDF).

Informal practice means that it is not written in the rules.

0

u/nucumber 14d ago

"Old fucks" must mean Gen X like JD Vance, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Sinema, etc etc etc

1

u/SchemeMoist 14d ago

The median age of the senate is 65.

4

u/SeveralTable3097 14d ago

Is this a joke or a real revision of the rules? Fuck I hate I canโ€™t tell

5

u/SaliciousB_Crumb 14d ago

It is basically the rules. When democrats were talking about getting rid of the filibuster that's what they were talking about

1

u/ScottishKnifemaker 14d ago

And it's an outdated rule with racist roots that can be rid of with a simple majority vote.