Anyone else think the Republicans will immediately change the filibuster rule?

No

 

No, I don't. The Republicans are going to want that filibuster to be there next time they are in the minority. I think there are some items of business that no party should be allowed to filibuster, such as confirmations, treaties, authorizations for the use of force, and such. But for new legislation unlimited debate is there by design, and it keeps a slim majority from imposing its will without compromise.

 

Thune or Cornyn are going to be the Majority Leader. Both are long time Senators and know it is only a matter of time until R's are in the minority again. Very much doubt they are going to end the filibuster, especially knowing what the Democrats would do if they did and D's gain the WH and the Senate. They will want to get Roberts, Alito, and Thomas replacements in and then sew up the SCOTUS for the next 30 years.

 

Depends on the legislation. They will probably change it for the confirmation of Trump's Executive Branch appointees just like Mitch McConnell did for the confirmation of SCOTUS justices.

 

Trump focus will be short-term outcomes, which could lead to significant long-term issues. His approach will include escalating national debt, pushing for political influence over interest rates, reducing environmental protections, and rolling back regulations in banking and Wall Street. This short-term focus which we will (or our children) pay serious consequences.
Yes, I can see him and maga leaders blowing thru filibuster rules.

 

I have no problem with that, and I won't have a problem with it when the next Democrat is in the White House. I agree with a minority being able to hold up legislation. I don't agree with a minority being able to hold up the routine business of government. Like I said above, certain things -- including the budget, which I failed to mention earlier -- need to get a timely up-or-down vote.

 

In theory they could change it now, and then change it back when they’re voted out of their majority (but before the inaugurations). That would be Nasty.

 

Same issue: What would prevent the other side from doing the exact same thing at the next opportunity? That rule exists still only because both sides know it will protect them when they are next in the minority.

 

You cannot uncross the Rubicon. I think R’s know that the D’s vote to undo the filibuster was mainly fan service to their voters and knew Manchin and Sinema would ensure it did not happen. I seriously doubt Tim Kaine and Mark Warner would have voted yes if they really thought there was a chance of the motion passing.

 

They didn't honor the vote on supreme court nominees, djt will push them to abandon the rule

 

That was after McConnell warned Reid not to cross the Rubicon on the filibuster on federal judges or he would do the same on SCOTUS judges. Reid ignored McConnell’s warning and crossed it. McConnell responded in kind and was able to get Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB confirmed because of it. Democrats could have gotten much less conservative Justices if Reid had listen to McConnell and preserved the filibuster on judicial appointments. I’m hoping they have learned their lesson on this topic.

 

So how many federal judge appointments are being held up today? Should dems return the favor and our system continue to suffer shortages or kowtow and let the Federalist society totally control the judicial system?

 

Said it many times before, nominations to the SCOTUS are not the same as nominations to lower courts. Unlike the decisions of lower courts which are subject to appeal the decisions of the Supreme Court are final, they become the law of the land and are as binding as statutes enacted by Congress maybe even more so since laws passed by Congress are subject to judicial review and can be nullified by the SCOTUS. The reason that Reid ended the filibuster for lower court judges was because McConnell was the device to block almost all of Obama's judicial nominations.

Getting back to the subject of this thread one commentator suggested if legislation strongly backed by Trump was blocked by the filibuster and Trump demanded elimination of the legislative device the Senate Majority Leader would acquiesce to the demand of the Donald. After what happened to Liz Cheney few Republican legislators have the balls to standup to Trump and that would probably include the Majority Leader. Even if he didn't have to worry about being primaried Trump would demand his replacement by the Republican caucus and when the Donald says "Jump!" they would respond in unison by asking "How high, Sir?".

 

At the end of the day, Democrats crossed the Rubicon on this issue first and Republicans told them ahead of time what the consequences of that would be. Harry Reid thought it was worth the risk. Turned out it was not. Now Democrats have to live with the outcome. Trying to claim that these are somehow different issues is a hard argument to buy.

Trump called for the end to the filibuster last time around and Senate Republicans said No.They also know Trump is term limited and they do not have a large majority. I do not see them having enough votes to end the filibuster.

 

Trump will arm Thune, Cornyn, or Barrasso in public shaming if they don’t get his agenda passed. So, not surprised if they go nuclear.

 

They will do whatever it takes to cement their grip on power.