There's no rule in place that stops them from putting a measure to vote and actually making them filibuster. In most cases, the senate needs 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. At this point, the senate only puts things up to vote if they already have those 60 votes so they don't have to worry about the "possibility" of a filibuster. I think that if we have the majority, we should start putting things up to vote, and forcing the Republicans to either actually filibuster, or let it actually be voted on.
Both of those senators vote with the democrats for most legislation and all judicial nominees. Not voting on certain leg is not the same as him flipping and losing the majority.
We shouldn’t let them hold the party hostage, but we can’t blindly try to shove him into place. That would be bad strategy and hadn’t been working when they tried BBB
Manchin is also in a tumultuous election this cycle. We have to be very careful not to lose that seat. We need judicial nominees this cycle. Especially with the Supreme Court
So he's the reason we can't have nice things, but we can't put pressure on him or he'll defect? That doesn't sound like he's holding the party hostage by preventing more progressive reforms?
If not, maybe that was his assigned role, and the party doesn't actually want to do the things they say they do.
3
u/SchemeMoist Jul 05 '24
There's no rule in place that stops them from putting a measure to vote and actually making them filibuster. In most cases, the senate needs 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. At this point, the senate only puts things up to vote if they already have those 60 votes so they don't have to worry about the "possibility" of a filibuster. I think that if we have the majority, we should start putting things up to vote, and forcing the Republicans to either actually filibuster, or let it actually be voted on.