records/3.json

{
    "text": " the democrats reclaimed control of the senate earlier this month with wins in both the georgia runoff elections.\n the issue appears likely to resurface as the thin democratic majority endeavors to pass joe biden's legislative agenda into law, and the republicans try to stop it.\n the structure of the chamber has already accomplished everything to encourage saying, such as debate, deliberation, and building consensus.\n adam, jentleson, eva and mckend joined us to talk about the impact of a filibuster and what is at stake if it goes away.\n the emotional senators who held marathon-long speeches either to block or to force the issue held the floor in those speeches.\n that in turn makes the disruption of the constitutional balance of power inert and the congress dysfunctional.\n the killing of the legislative filibuster made two headlines when it was said that it was not a vote.\n now that the republicans have lost control of the upper chamber, mitch mcconnell is doing everything he can as a minority leader to save the filibuster.\n the senate kept speaking on the floor for or against the block, delaying legislation that had majority support.\n you as a party identity see that ability as an important safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, or as a guarantee against institutional paralysis.\n in recent years, democrats have used a legislative filibuster to block funding for donald trump's border wall project, to protect unemployment benefits, and to stop republicans from restricting access to abortion.\n the filibuster is now being defended by mcconnell, eager to hold on to power and arguing that the rules should be maintained by the senate for deliberation and to build consensus.\n the argument is that the senate should maintain the rules for deliberation and to build consensus.\n even as the declaration immediately affected the early help of the democrat and biden agendas as president, progressives fumed.\n he tweeted tuesday, \"it's clear that if a key rule is ever attacked by democrats, it will drain consent and comity out of the senate.\n it reassured the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, to agree by organization to a resolution that would put the democrats in control of the senate committee, thereby reducing the division in the party.\n democrats and minorities say it seriously, that republicans are abusing minority vision by forcing it on an entire country with narrow minded parliamentary tactics, and by blocking policies such as gun control from getting people's support.\n it was abused by republicans by forcing a minority vision on an entire country with narrow minded parliamentary tactics and by blocking policies such as gun control from getting people's support.\n through narrow minded parliamentary tactics, a minority vision has been forced upon the entire country.\n abolishing the filibuster rule would in theory allow the democrats to finally get some things like immigration reform, climate legislation, voter protection, racial justice legislation, etc done while in power.\n democrats get to do some things like immigration reform, climate legislation, voter protection, racial justice legislation, etc while holding power.\n some things are done like immigration reform, climate legislation, voter protection, racial justice legislation, etc.\n many democrats believe that in order to do anything big in the biden agenda era, the \"michael and the barbaro\" rule must be destroyed, meaning the rule of saving to block the agenda.\n the influential elite decided that scrapping altogether, rather than trying to amend, was what the amendment was about.\n the need for unanimity in a public body or something approaching that, when it comes to security contributions, is founded on the supposition that they are.\n joe and manchin of west virginia and kyrsten and sinema of arizona said they would not support fox on this ruling.\n for much of american history, the rule of \"not written in the constitution\" has been used to bludgeon against vital measures that were gradually adopted by the upper chamber in the 19th century.\n many democrats have concluded that with the growth of the republican senate party and the leadership of mitch and mcconnell, it is near time to stop being so relentlessly obstructionist, and that the enactment of the policy is so powerful, even after the election, that it will not be weakened by the election victory.\n a filibuster, originally used only in high-profile battles, became a prominent strategy for the southern democrats, who were deeply divided between liberals and conservatives in the north, by blocking civil rights bills in the 1960s and 1960s.\n republicans use filibustering roughly twice as often as democrats to prevent the other side from passing legislation.\n a rejection by a supermajority of the delegates to the constitutional convention would have considered the navigational actions of ships and shipments, the regulation of interstate commerce, and the raising of the army required a rejection.\n in 1951, the leadership conference on civil and rights listed key goals as ending filibustering along with criminalizing lynching and ending segregation.\n one of the key goals was to end filibustering along with criminalizing lynching and ending segregation.\n the filibuster of the civil rights act in 1957 lasted more than 24 hours, and the derailment of the 1964 civil rights act was almost as well organized.\n adam and jentleson's previous work provides a powerful historical account of the devastating way the 60-vote threshold for legislation affected the government and the former harry reid-led senate's ability to lead a majority.\n the senate paralyzes the legislative process by rendering the congress ineffective, and by allowing it to flourish in a great chamber of deliberation.\n in 1806, the senate dropped a previous question on a motion to end the debate and bring up an item for immediate vote, on the advice of the vice president, aaron and burr, who thought it redundant.\n during the obama administration, the gop accelerated the use of this political weapon by blocking the judicial nomination and stifling attempts to achieve immigration reform and gun control.\n this kind of obstruction has led reid to the final option, the so-called nuclear option, and the elimination of filibustering of the president's nominees for everything but the us, supreme, and court in 2013.\n in 2013, filibustering of the president's nominees (except for the us supreme court) was eliminated.\n where it takes more time, more careful deliberation, cuts and deals, and more thorough discussion of legislation, it's supposed to be a cooling saucer for what they call it.\n it takes more time for members to deliberate, cut deals, and discuss legislation more thoroughly.\n the reason was demonstrated when the republicans in the senate won the majority in 2017 and ended the filibuster of the supreme court nomination, clearing the path for just neil and gorsuch, brett and kavanaugh, as well as amy, coney and barrett.\n the filibuster is already abused by republicans who have disproportionate power in the senate because the upper chamber gives the same number of representatives to smaller states as larger ones.\n the power in the senate is already disproportionate because the upper chamber gives the same number of representatives to smaller states as to larger ones.\n the upper chamber gives the smaller states the same number of representatives as the larger ones.\n systemic problems such as non-racial justice or the climate crisis have been handled for a long time.\n referring to a bill to stop minority disenfranchisement, obama said, \"we should have kept marching when the john lewis, voting, and rights act was passed.\n if this is all it takes to secure the rights of every american to be given by god, then let's do away with another jim and crow relic, filibustering.\n it took all this to eliminate another jim crow filibuster in order to secure the god given right of every american.\n at the time, it was not taken to be particularly acceptable that the response to george w and bush picking a loony response warranted unusual measures.\n in 1957, former senator strom and thurmond used a filibuster to stop a civil rights law from going forward.\n a year later, mcconnell adopted a strategy on steroids to block obama's nomination army of judges.\n in 2013, democrats killed a filibuster of an executive nominee below the level of a supreme court justice with a response.\n the last few decades, bipartisanship has collapsed in part because filibustering has encouraged lawmakers to take the easy way out, double down along party lines instead of working together for a compromise.\n the filibuster encourages lawmakers to take the easy way out, to double down along party lines instead of working together for a compromise.\n thurmond and several other segregationists were filibustered on the 1964 civil rights act, essentially delaying for a couple of months the ability of the senate to move that forward.\n it has a very storied history for its use, really stands as a way to think about what we are now thinking about some of the policies for the biggest initiative at the heart of this country.\n it's really been used as a way to think about what we're thinking now about some of the policies for the biggest initiative at the heart of this country.\n these senators, along with their 60 colleagues who actually passed the civil rights act that ultimately passed, delayed the point at which they could vote on it.\n thurmond registered his opposition to it all moving forward, and with almost a full day of speeches against it, he registered his opposition to it all getting up.\n it has remained a singular mechanism for delaying or blocking legislation, and also nominations, for years.\n for many months democrats and republicans were feuding over who would be the leader, with either refusing to do it or allowing it to go forward in the senate with harry reid as the majority leader then confirming barack obama's nomination as president.\n president barack obama's nomination has been refused or allowed to go forward in the senate with harry reid as the majority leader and then confirmed.\n when history repeats itself, it will be james and davis, a democrat in the senate, who made the decision to then control the chamber with pretty extreme measures.\n the change in our proposal today will ensure the executive nominee, the judicial nominee, and the no.\n just for the sake of the presidential nomination, the democrats are going to change the rules of filibustering for the specific judiciary.\n let's remember, one of the biggest proponents of filibustering the circuit and court nominees in the very recent past was a democratic senator who literally pioneered the practice.\n in the very recent past, a democratic senator has been the biggest proponent of the practice of filibustering nominees to the circuit and court.\n at the time jesus and d warned them about the power of the senate, but this was not the whole appropriate use of that power.\n democrats are quick to say, \"this is a very close look at moving forward, and there is no will to do so, and there may not be. \"\n it's a good thing you're in the majority now that we're potentially facing an obstruction of your president's nominee to the supreme court.\n if neil, gorsuch, brett, kavanaugh, amy, coney, and barrett get the 51 votes to be put on the supreme court, the only thing that is certain is that the republicans need a vote to put a justice on the court under trump's appointment.\n it would allow mitch mcconnell to push through a ton of judicial nominees, allowing him to win a simple majority of the senate to confirm 3 conservative supreme court justices as president.\n with a simple majority, the confirmation of three conservative supreme court justices will allow trump to win the presidency.\n we see how it allows a minority to delay and in some cases block essentially just causes such as protecting civil rights.\n the filibuster rule, which haunts the minority when it comes to something like the american judiciary, is eliminated.\n mitch and mcconnell are trying to exact this promise from the democrats that they will not get rid of the filibuster rule.\n reliable: when it comes to the filibuster ruling, former senate majority leader mitch mcconnell asked the democrats to specifically commit to do or not.\n former majority leaders hejian, d and mcconnell, in order to get rid of the last real bit of filibuster power for legislation, have asked the former majority leaders to promise not to do what they did, and to detonate the nuclear option for that purpose.\n not doing what harry and reid, former majority leaders, have done: getting rid of the last bit of real filibuster power for legislation.\n and harry and reid, former majority leaders, will do anything to get rid of the last bit of the real power of filibustering for legislation.\n he asked them to promise in front of them that they would get rid of that part of the rule, not because of it, but because it would preserve the ability of the entire senate minority to delay or block legislation.\n eliminating the ability of a minority to say legislation is a place for the majority to rule and legislation to conform to the whim of the moment makes it so.\n eliminates the ability of a minority to say legislation is a place for the majority to rule and for legislation to conform to the whim of the moment.\n to say that there is a place for majority rule and legislation that conforms to the whim of the moment.\n we swap party platforms randomly, swinging wildly between visions of the opposite, guaranteeing half the countries will be miserable and resentful at any given time.\n the pendulum swings wildly between the opposite vision, guaranteeing half the countries will be miserable and resentful at any given time.\n republicans must stop biden's president's agenda in order to prevent democrats from doing what they want to do.\n perhaps from the very outset the promise of the democrats to neuter the ability of the republicans to stop legislation from being legislated is essentially an oxymoron.\n this position by michael, the barbarian, mcconnell and this demand from the democrats seems to assume that the senate wants to get rid of the filibuster rule.\n this position by michael, the barbarian, mcconnell and this demand from the democrats assumes that the senate wants to get rid of the filibuster rule.\n many senate democrats say they want to get rid of the filibuster rule as a way to stand in the way of progress, that it's time to clear away the debris and finally allow big sweeping legislation that was bottled up under republican rules to go through. (james, d. )\n big sweeping legislation that was bottled up under republican rule was finally allowed to go through.\n they see all this priority as a lack of action, and frankly punishing republicans for trying to stand in the way of the democrats is actually rewarding them.\n he said he had assurances from two centrist democrats, joe and manchin, and from kyrsten and sinema that they would vote to eliminate the filibuster, and that they would never state in public that the rest of the democrats would vote to eliminate the filibuster.\n it was stated in public that the rest of the members would never vote to eliminate the filibuster.\n with this assurance in hand, he said he was willing to drop the demand for formal promises from the majority leader.\n with this view now, jon and tester have already said that many of the people in montana who oppose getting rid of the filibuster are in the center.\n mcconnell very well has to change the view that standing in the way of everything and blocking action is the way it can and must be.\n he is very determined to leave the senate where consensus is generated with this message: \"do not break down the one tool that still remains for consensus. \"\n this is the message leaving the senate: do not break down the one tool that still remains for generating consensus.\n all the same thing is being said about how broken these institutions are, the record is from tom and udall.\n i propose changing the rules of the senate to ensure that this institution will not remain a graveyard for progress.\n biden on wednesday signed a series of sweeping executive orders designed to confront climate change.\n",
    "summary": "The Filibustering Rule. Adam, jentleson, eva, and mckend join us to talk about the impact of a filibuster and what is at stake if it goes away. Now that the republicans have lost control of the Senate, mitch mcconnell is doing everything he can as a minority leader to save the filibuster. democratats and minorities say it seriously that republicans are abusing minority vision by forcing it on an entire country with narrow minded parliamentary tactics, and by blocking policies such as gun control from getting people's support. abolishing the filibuster rule would in theory allow the democrats to finally get some things like immigration reform, climate legislation, voter protection, racial justice legislation, etc., while in power. For much of American history, the rule of \"not written in the constitution\" has been used to bludgeon against vital measures that were gradually adopted by the upper chamber. In the late nineteenth century, the use of the filibuster was used by both liberals and conservatives to delay or prevent bills from passing. It was also used by the segregationists to obstruct progress on civil rights legislation. The framers goal was to end filibustering along with criminalizing lynching and ending segregation. This change in our proposal today will ensure the executive nominee, the judicial nominee, and the no.secutorial nominee to the supreme court,\" Clyburn says. He adds that even if neil, gorsuch, brett, kavanaugh, amy, coney, and barrett get the 51 votes to pass the Supreme Court, the only thing that is certain is that Republicans need a vote to put a justice on the court under trump's appointment. biden on wednesday signed a series of sweeping executive orders designed to confront climate change"
}