Why the Filibuster is Unconstitutional | Robert Reich
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2021
- Thanks to the filibuster, 41 Senate Republicans representing just 21% of the country are blocking laws supported by the vast majority of Americans. That’s not just wrong - it’s unconstitutional.
Watch More: The Senate Rule Breaking Our Politics ►► • The Senate Rule Breaki...
#filibuster #senate #constitution
The US "lets bring democracy to the world"
The world "Do you even know what democracy is?"
The US only wants to bring capitalism to the world
@@Otzkar the worship/deification of capital?
The USA is not now, never has been, nor will it ever be a democracy.
In fact, the founding fathers were shit-scared about democracy breaking out in America, and so they ensured it never would.
When 1 vote in Iowa is worth almost 4 votes in California, you know your system is corrupt.
@@Chris.Davies representative government is funny like that. However, like alot of America's problems, it can be traced back to owning slaves. The core reason we have a house of representatives and a senate was a compromise between the northern and southern factions so neither side had significantly more power than the other, basically you can practically define either side on that question alone. Compromises are fine as long as we are moving forward but today's politicians are basically trying to condense us back to that factionalized mentality, and if history is a guide, that's probably going to lead to another civil war......
We have tall order to save our democracy. End the electoral college and lock down voting rights because the greedy dishonest republican fascist idiots are taking it over state by state.
Representatives are selling American families that work for a living and pay taxes to the wealthiest of us who pay no taxes. The going price for a family is 30 pieces of silver. This must be shown to the voters before the next election.
Learn the truth, spread the word, and make a difference.
How many of us would show up in Washington DC for peaceful protest at the right time to be heard?
Framers never expected the top 1% would take over representative Democracy by using lobbyists and eventually legalizing bribery of politicians.
Sending it to the Supreme Court would be nice if Republicans didn’t Obstruct that too.
It wouldn’t matter either way. The Supreme Court is majority conservative and they’ll vote to keep it UNLESS Biden expands the court to vote in favor of abolishing this unconstitutional roadblock.
The Fayld Staytz o'Merka; where the top court is made up of ancient alzheimers politicians.
The single most stupid judicial fact on the planet.
And the most corrupt western nation by far.
The Supreme Court is republican
Well technically "Judicial Review" is Unconstitutional.
And who blocks the democrats, from overruling the parlamentarian or raise the number of the supreme court members?
Goldman sachs.
You know what I mean.
Even just returning to a talking filibuster and requiring the talking to be on topic would be a massive improvement.
Imagine the "quiet parts" they would say outloud several hours into filibustering voting rights legislation or a minimum wage increase being compiled together from cspan feeds to show what they really think of the people of this country.
You don't have to even be relevant. They could read Harry Potter to perform a filibuster
Or they could just do their fucking jobs and vote for bills. That would be great too. The fillibuster has to go. Period. End of story.
The fate of our nation depends on it.
naw, those idiots will read "green eggs and ham". They don't have ideas, they just have abuse.
One idea I like is if there is a filibuster there can be a decleration of a referendum and the minority obstructing either has to agree or drop the filibuster.
That way it can keep it's stated goal of not allowing a fluke majority to brute force laws against the interest of the people.
The problem is, a majority Right-leaning Supreme Court of the United States isn't going to side with justice.
Them refusing to rule on Texas' super messed up abortion laws makes that obvious.
"isn't going to side with justice"
I wonder what you consider "justice"?
@@hottipmedia7191 "Following established case law would be a good start."
Indeed it is!
Thanks for the continuing education Robert! If only all elected officials were required to at least read the Constitution before taking office... Oh well, a girl can dream, right?
They need bribes, aka, campaign contributions to successfully run for office. They get bought by corporations and banks to pass laws favorable to them not for the peoples. There's no democracy in the US, it is a joke
@@jimmytimmy3680 Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct Jimmy.
You might try actually *reading* the Constitution instead of believing *anything* this idiot says. The next time he says anything accurate about history, economics or law will be his first.
@@jimmytimmy3680 Unfortunately, the best way for a billionaire oligarchy such as America's to survive is by convincing the people that they live in a democracy.
@@FletchforFreedom And you read the Constitution … when?
It's disgusting how much power these jerk bags can hold and essentially hold everyone hostage
The public could counteract them if we coukd get their head out of the sand. Ou biggest adversary
Who are the jerk bags?
@@kk54351 these politicians (mostly republicans) that are using the filibuster to hold hostage the majority of the countries desires so nothing gets done. I thought it was obvious, but that's who.
@@frostman9661 So what are your thoughts on dems using it over 300 times 2019-2020?
@@kk54351 Not sure. That wasn't my point, my point was that the filibuster is idiotic. It's just from my subjective perspective the republicans have used it for clearly more bipartisan issues but simply did not agree with their party (they popularized it under Obama and it took off from there). But in reality both parties suck, they are two sides to the same coin and show they clearly do not give a damn about everyday people.
Thanks to Robert Reich for regularly posting well-produced, educational videos in his unflagging mission to support the common good. He's truly a national treasure.
Why not make mention of the idea that being an "originalist" is an inherently authoritarian and anti-democratic idea that the hallowed Framers themselves specifically worked to avoid through the example of the immediate deployment of amendments?
Probably because we don’t need to. Republicans are so unpopular that they literally need to cheat to win anything at this point.
@@whysocurious7366 but they are very good at cheating, and establishment Democrats are fine with it. After all, they both take bribes, ahem I meant "campaign contributions" from the same people.
Originalism is also extremely stupid, as it claims that we should stick to what the founders thought the constitution said. But the founding fathers didn't agree on what the constitution said! They even changed their positions during their careers to suit their political agendas.
@Justin Vaughan who rebelled against the United States... conservatives.
who stormed the capital during a president confirmation with guns... conservatives.
who is the revolutionary scum every single time during US history... conservatives.
Nice try though 😂🤣
@Justin Vaughan You watch far too much television.
The filibuster ensure there is no progression in our Nation!
Having only an ultra-right-wing party and a plain old right-wing party ensures that fact.
It ensures that the democrats can't pass whatever they want , if the filibuster goes then these insane democrats can pass gun control , rig the voting system to insure they stay in power for the foreseeable future , the democrats like the filibuster when it benefits them .
Gerrymandering the English Language & The Constitution to Suit their Evil Ways - Republicans.
Democrats Gerrymander too.
@@galerus3776, Democrats and Republicans, two sides of the same corporate owned coin. One tells you to your face how evil and vile they are. The other gives pretty platitudes while stabbing you in the back. They both use scare tactics to turn us plebs against each other. We're suffering and fighting while they're laughing at us all the way to the bank. This two party duopoly is killing us.
@@YouCanNotVoteOutFascism Spot on comment!
@@YouCanNotVoteOutFascism I say that all the time.
Very informative 👏, thanks you so much for your time and professionalism. Now if only the mainstream media would pass this on.
As one teacher to another, I really appreciate your videos, and how they make complex issues clear, with relevant examples and explanation.
He's full of Bs. It's been used by both parties since 1917. The democrats just want to change the rules for more power.
@@edwinamendelssohn5129 rare use by both parties in the past does not change the fact that the filibuster is now used extensively by one party, the GOP, to thwart legislation a large majority of Americans support. The Senate has always been an anti-democratic feature in the American system of government, since it is predicated on the principal of land (states) voting and having rights. It's original purpose was primarily to keep the more democratic House from running roughshod over the *privileges* of the wealthy - in early America, white-male owners of a lot of land and slaves.
@@rx7racerca rare? How about constant?
Fascinating ... Why hasn't anyone taken this to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the constitutionality of this practice?
The Supreme Court is packed with political hacks, there is no justice to be found there.
The typical reason it doesn't go through the supreme court is because one branch does not have the authority to tell the other branch how to do its job.
It's one thing if a the legislature we're to pass an unconstitutional bill. That, the supreme court can rule on. But the filibuster is procedure, and it doesn't expressly violate the constitution. Not to mention, no one would have any standing outside a senator to even challenge the filibuster in court.
These factors basically end up in the fact that it's a situation the court doesn't end up dealing with.
@@samuelmerkel2888 despite what they try to have us believe, the Supreme Court is just as political as the other branches. They very well could rule on the matter if there was enough political will.
For example you bring up the issue of standing by they decide who has standing, an argument could be made that voters are being disenfranchised by not affording them the representation that their elected senetors should duly have under the constitution.
Because Reich lied to you. There's nothing remotely "un-Constitutional" about the filibuster. It's a Senate rule agreed on by both political parties and 100% Constitutional. it's not "IN" the Constitutional because parliamentary procedure is not supposed to be in the Constitution (although I think one of the biggest mistakes in American history was not putting it in the Constitution itself because the filibuster (the idea that you must have at least 67% of the vote in order to enslave the other 33% of the population) IS democracy itself). But as it stands it's parliamentary procedure which is whatever the Senate (51% of the Senate I believe) has agreed to.
In FACT, I believe Democrats could do away with the filibuster tonight if they can get 50% of the vote with VP Harris breaking the tie. The fact of the matter is that they got rid of part of the filibuster and when Republicans gained a simple majority that bit Democrats in the posterior end. What's left of the filibuster is the last thread of democracy in this country. Even some of the Democrats realize that, which is why Democrats can't even get a majority of their own party to support it.
@@jon9103 In the 70's it was majority Liberals why wasn't it done then?
If didn't serve the interests of certain individuals on both sides as well as corporations and the wealthy, it would've been deleted long ago and thanks Mr. Reich for your detailed analysis on the subject. Btw, can someone please send this video to a certain dimwit, yet obstructionist senator from Arizona so she can buy a clue.
As an Aussie, the filibuster is weird to me. We run in simple majority. And if the people want a mechanism to stop the party in government (because we are a parliamentary system, where the most lower house seats means you are in government), then that’s what the senate is for. Also, our Senate has more than two parties, which is helpful. We have more than two parties because we have a preferential voting system. It doesn’t remove all the problems by any means, but it does allow for greater representation of the people.
Take this immediately to the "supreme court ". Thank you Robert, this is a no brainer. Senator Whitehouse would be an excellent person to propose this.
Thank you. I love a man who can actually explain the truth.
He keeps saying 41 is blocking when it 50 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
That's because it makes it look good for his argument. Notice how he never brings up one amendment or article of the Constitution he claims it violates. And that's because he can't.
It's maddeningly...
The filibuster must be abolished!
Let's get to work "We The People"!
Support with petitions, donations (Because we ALL know nothing gets done without bribing politicians) and protests to get back our government and SCOTUS.
We couldn't give them enough money to change. The only way is by a multi pronged approach that includes boots on the ground, community aid, general strike, running for office ourselves and challenge those corporate politicians, knocking on doors, boycotts, e.t.c.... you know, real activism and civic responsibility.
This Channel is THE BEST!! Thank you for positing such valuable, well organized, information! Instead of using social media like a WEAPON (as the RepubliCON party does), WE THE PEOPLE, need to use Social Media as A TOOL to take back OUR Government! Sharing videos like these and using them as a reference, WILL be VERY valuable in OUR efforts to do so! Thank YOU!!
A good history lesson that needs to be shared about an out-of- control party hindering what needs to be done in this country and move forward.
They won't care. They've tasted authoritarian power under Trump & they will do anything to get it back.
You're referring to the Democrat party, I assume?
@@garyt7193 No. As I recall it’s the republicans who want to move backwards. Back to some imaginary time of greatness.
@@mtn1793 I'd respond with a reality check, but the ignorance appears to be on another level
@@garyt7193 Reality in the same sense as trumps reality tv show mentality? No thank you.
🙏🙏👏👏👏 Let's get rid of the Senate, too!
The Senate was a compromise to give small states some leverage. We are a union of 50 states not a centralized dictatorship like our duopoly wants. The US Constitution specifically and intentionally makes no mention of political parties. Please read it and see for yourself.
Why hasn't this been addressed in both Houses of Congress? Why hasn't the filibuster already been done away with? Get on it and DO IT!
@@retched
So why hasn't this been addressed in the Senate? If it's unconstitutional why is it still in effect?
Abolish the filibuster
thank you for explaining important matters truthfully in a way that even i can understand. the graphics and music help too. very professionally done. thank you again.
Corruption will be our downfall. AND Extremism the new normal.
Wow I always learn no matter old I'm getting. They need to do away with it for good.
If you learned anything from that wretched creep, you must have had the iq of a Jellyfish to start out with
Robert Reich thank you for your tremendous work throughout the years educating the public. You are a great American and I only wish you had more support when you ran for president.
Abolishing the Senate, doubling the size of the House, outlawing gerrymandering of House districts, and mandating publicly financed political campaigns would be a better solution. But it’s easier to change a Senate rule than the constitution itself.
It'd take an amendment, but I'd love the idea of a senatorial districts with the rule that no senator may represent a population that more that 5 times the size of the least populous state. It addresses the idea that states like California and Texas could split into 80 new states, each with more population than Wyoming, and get 160 new senators. Instead of encouraging that, just create districts with 1 senator that represent a population five times the size of Wyoming and its two senators.
On top of that the "Wyoming Rule" should apply to the House where no house district can represent a population larger than the least populous state.
Or you could just say mob rule socialism. That'd be a shorter version
@@garyt7193 I’m not certain why you equate majority rule to “mob” rule. If you prefer government ruled by a minority, put me in charge.
@@lawyer1165 I prefer the rule we currently have......a representative Republic. I have no interest in having CA & NY dictate the policies, for all the other states
@@garyt7193 You do understand that representative means "of the people" right. If there are more people in a state, that state should get more representation. It's not land that votes.
Love Robert! I've known for years the filibuster is a procedure NOT A LAW! But most college educated people don't know this!
Nonsense
End the filibuster now!
Would be neat to see a collaboration with legaleagle on this, the legal side
@Justin Vaughan Could you take your angry rant and put it somewhere else, please? Thanks.
@Justin Vaughan There was nothing to disagree with. You were ranting at me and I have no interest in that rant. Dismissed.
Our whole political system (as well as the judicial system) is a Joke & so frustrating, once you realize it'll take over 100 years before any meaningful change will happen.
We don't have 100 years.
No reason for that. Demographics are shifting hard. They don't have that much time left before they become politically irrelevant. That's why they're trying to destroy democracy so quickly in every way they can.
@@andrewzcolvin Because the money has never changed.
If it's unconstitutional, why hasn't a law suit been filed against the federal government?
It's pretty ridiculous. Let the majority pass legislation, then when the majority changes, let the other side pass theirs. Let the people make their judgment on action, not gridlock.
Congress might recover some reputation if it was able to show it can act.
Also change the electoral system - PR or MMP for the House of Representatives, direct election for president. The current system is medieval.
More of this needs to opened to others.
This was so helpful, thank you Sir!
This is a great video! How the heck am I only seeing it in my feed now?!
Solutions-based commentary: Eliminate the filibuster, revoke the patriot act and citizens united!! Thank you RR!!!
The question that has been on my mind since this started, is... if the filibuster is unconstitutional, then why can't it be ruled on by a court as a part of a suit against the Senate... or a Suit against the Federal Government itself... can anyone explain this to me... if the Senate is acting in contravention of the Constitution, then why are they being allowed to do so...? Why has no one stood up and challenged them to stop...? Especially since the term Filibuster is a pirate term for the actions of theft and murder...
While I agree that the minority should have time to state their disagreement about any legislation... why should that disagreement block the majority of the vote according the Constitution...
Excellent video. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video. A must see video for everyone.
Thanks for your work Mr. Reich! 🙏
I really like that idea of taking the filibuster to the SCOTUS. Do it! Do it! Do it!
Thank you, Robert. I hope Chuck Schumer gets this clip and brings this very important and valuable information to the floor of the Senate. The last time I checked, this was supposed to be a government of, by and for the People and not a government of the few.
Great video except the last 30 seconds -- What are the chances the Supreme Court would actually rule the filibuster unconstitutional? They would probably rule the judiciary should not "get involved" in this "political issue," which should instead be sorted out directly by the involved parties (i.e. senators.) Which is just what they did with Congressional subpoenas being ignored by targets in TFG's administration. Or that it is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court to decide, which is just what they did with the ruling on partisan gerrymandering.
Well not this Supreme Court; composed of a Majority of Mitch McConnell's Hand Picked Lackeys. Mitch McConnell is the "Poodle" of the Ultra Wealthy and Corporate Interest FOREIGN And DOMESTIC. In the 2022 Midterm Elections: At the Local, State and Federal Levels VOTE the Trump/McConnell/Vladimir Putin Controlled GOP. Representatives OUT OF OFFICE
Also the constitution does state that the Senate has the discretion of creating its own procedural rules. I wonder how this clause holds up to the clause stating a simple majority should have the power to pass laws and confirm appointments
@@michaelbustillo-sakhai5163 - It's very clear that Robert is just wrong. The filibuster prevents a vote from occurring as part of their rules and procedures. It doesn't in any way change what counts as a passing vote. The two things don't overlap.
And just to be clear, there are all sorts of votes in senate procedures, but the constitution only dictates what it takes for the chamber to approve a law. It says nothing at all about any procedural vote.
Constitution gives VP power to break a tie. 60 % does not allow a tie. Hence, filibuster is un-Constitutional.
Most ppl that talk a lot about the constitution have no idea what it actually says
BINGO!
Professor Edward Glaude,I feel embraced the topic with insight, too many dems have ties to corporate influences and self interests that inordinately effect their votes in matters popular with their constituents and the common good much like the GOP
I wonder how Lyndon Johnson as president would have dealt with the likes of Joe Manchin? He'd likely shake Joe's hand and crush it until Joe said "Yes, I'll go along."
You nailed it! What is lacking is truly savvy politicians.
So true!!! Tom Manning!!! About the lying senator from West Virginia!!!!
Part of me is terrified to let the filibuster go… At least until gerrymandering and suppression of black and brown voters are eliminated. We need an absolutely level playing field, without any discrimination. This also includes restoring the voting rights for ex-felons that served their time. It isn’t right that their voices are ignored. While we’re at it, eliminate the electoral college for presidential elections. :)
My go to solution is make it a talking filibuster with a senate audience. After scheduled debate has ended (normally 10 minutes per senator), if senators still want to offer more debate (filibuster) they may do so so long as 1/3rd of all senators vote to extend debate 1 hour AND remain in the chamber to listen to that debate. Should no one offer debate (stops speaking), less than 1/3rd of senators are present (non-attendance), or an hour passes without a 1/3rd vote to extend debate, then debate on the bill is ended.
Benefit is it keeps the talking filibuster which has its advantages (see Texas), but also requires senators to listen to that debate (similar to Texas in they had to leave their home and livelihood). Yes, this could be gamed and put on a schedule, but I doubt 34 republican senators would care about Ted Cruz enough to actually sit in their chairs to listen to him read Green Eggs and Ham when they could be in their offices or at dinners with lobbyists. Plus, the vote every hour interrupts those that may try to sleep through the debate THEY wanted to hear.
Honestly, if 34 senators want to extend debate on a bill and actually sit there and listen to that debate, then I'm cool with that happening.
Manchin isn't a moderate by any stretch of the imagination. He's a D.I.N.O. at best (Democrat In Name Only).
Exactly right. Joe Mansion (pun intended) was a Republican until he forfeited out that he needed to put a D by his name to get elected Governor of WV.
This needs to go viral!
Article I section 5: "Each House [of Congress] *may determine the rules of its proceedings,* punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." [emphasis mine]
Deciding "lets have a filibuster in our rules" is Constitutional.
Very informative!
You will die a legend sir reich
Both the Filibuster and Electoral College should be eliminated since they both allow the Minority to rule at times!
The filabuster prevents a core part of democracy right now - discussion and consensus
With the SCOTUS the way it's; I won't hold my breath on them being "JUST"
@@andrewzcolvin We can thank the Federalist’s Society for that. In whatever way one might be inclined…
Thank you for your insights and historical overview. I hope 1000s see this, the filibuster is stopping lots of advancements in USA.
So what was it doing when dems used it over 300 times 2019-2020?
@@kk54351 so you agree with the original comment, then!
@@thoughtfortheday7811 Dodge that question!!!!!
@@kk54351 you're not very good at this. If you want to learn how to be evasive, watch Boris Johnson during Prime Minister Questions, I'm sure UA-cam will have good examples.
@@thoughtfortheday7811 But how good are you???? Are there any examples when Labour leaders were NOT evasive too. Hmmmm?????
Funny how people who CLAIM to be originalists in fact do the exact opposite of what the original framers intended when this system of governance was designed. Hypocrisy at its best...
I mean, I would have quoted the exact part of the constitution which expressly forbids a filibuster. Oh wait, that part doesn’t exist, nevermind
Isn't it democrats fault that the fillibuster remains though? Or a few "centrists". All democrats need is a simple majority to end the fillibuster for good, which is what makes 5he whole thing so silly.
Thanks for the history Lesson. Definitely was needing a refresher.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 direct democracy is not a tenant of the federal Constitutional Republic. Filibuster was a term used to describe long winded Senators. It comes from filibustier a name to describe pirates. Before this term became popularized in early 1800s "dilatory" debate would have been the term used. In the Constitution each house gets to set rules and the Senate has NEVER had a rule that put a time limit on Senate debate. The "previous question" rule ended in 1802 when Aaron Burr convinced the Senate it wasn't needed. This was a rule not unlike "cloture" rule we have today. The first dilatory (filibuster) debate came in 1790 from Senators of Virginia and South Carolina against the location of the 1st Continental Congress in Philadelphia.
Robert Riech is nothing more than a Pied Piper.
Sounds like what we call, state's rights, and the reason is to keep federal government out of state's individual economies.
You do not need the filibuster, which is clearly anti-democratic; you need more than two parties :-)
@@andrewzcolvin Very well put, a different voting system and a ban on the ridiculous amount of money involved are definitely needed too..
So why doesn't a law firm take up this case?
Thank you, wishing you a wonderful day 🦋
Hw is not telling you that he was all for the filibuster when the Republicans had control.
Mr Reich please bring this lawsuit on behalf of the American people. Surely ever American in the majority has standing if neighbors with no standing in Texas can venue shop and sue their neighbors, clinics, and doctors under their new law.
Fillibuster: A fancy term for "Heckler's Veto."
How could the filibuster stand for so long?
Thank you Mr. Reich!
Your videos are excellent at explaining these topics in a simple digestible way.
Get them Robert kick their butt
McConnell makes my skin crawl.
"How can someone profess to ... defend the Constitution while repeatedly violating it?"
There's a word for holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously: doublethink.
There's also another few words, like ambivalence and dilemma. You can have conflicting views on an issue and them both come from a positive place, especially if only one choice or none is the only viable path. Bernie has filibustered as well and so have a lot of Dems that now argue against it and would still use it when Republicans come to power again if it's still around.
That's doubleplusungood
The conservative scotus would just dismiss the case saying it's up for the senate to define its internal procedures.
That's my worry too.
@@dan_hitchman007 Well then the Dems will have to go the route that nothing gets passed until this is repealed - and I mean nothing - not the budget or anything else.
@@inwalters They will have to put thumb screws on Manchin, Sinema, and any other Dem hold out until they cave for at least an amended filibuster. It won't be easy because they are complete sell outs.
Get Rid of the Filibuster 💯
I wonder what this guy will say about the filibuster when republicans have the senate
Amen Robert! Thank you!
The rule on ending debate requiring 60 Senators, can't that simply be ended by a vote to remove the rule? And do they really keep debating, or do they just pretend to debate and all go home for the evening??
Since the filibuster is enabled by Senate rule, I don't see it as a constitutional violation. The will of the majority of the voting public is superseded by the will of the majority of directors and top executives of the nation's major corporations. Bring back the standing filibuster!
Whether the filibuster is unconstitutional or merely extraconstitutional, it needs to go. The constitution provides for two ways to propose an amendment States should propose an amendment that all representation must be PROPORTIONAL. Then send it out for ratification. Amendments stay pending forever with no mechanism to un-ratify them. The Proportional Amendment would kneecap the Electoral College System and the Senate and all its bullshit rules in one swoop. Two birds, one stone.
@@apricity69 Dream on.
@@mjnyc8655 I’m not saying it would be quick or easy, just possible.
Pelosi 😴💤 Biden 😴💤 Garland 😴💤 Harris 🥺
Brilliant!
Let's just boil this down to what it really is about: southerners.
Why then is no one taking the Filibuster's unconstitutionality argument to the courts and even up to the SCOTUS? Those with the means and know how should be ashamed of themselves for their inaction!
It's that "banality of evil" thing. Which becomes part of the culture and then part of the identity. It's an approach that everyone is using it so no one really can, or even wants, to change the situation.
1:05 Thanks, I had to go back and listen again to make sure that the Windows "doonk" noise wasn't because my computer messed up in the background. LOL
This just says both sides are failures, allowing this is corruption, praying for America
I think most American citizens believe it is the stupidest tool used by politicians in our government. The filibuster needs to be abolished to get things done!!
Sharing this!
The Senate has too many Senators from states which very low populations. When I was in grade school during the early 50's, Brooklyn had more people than the populations of 6 states combined.
Its Extra Constitutional...just like standing committees. Get rid of both...
Thank you 🍀
DINO's may be unconstitutional. At least we expect this from Republicans.
It is great to be enlightened. Good reporting.
How can this issue be brought before the SC? Standing?