[arzig]

So you’re saying the solution since Republicans control congress they should do away with the filibuster, pass a check funding bill and then continue governing under bare majorities with no filibuster?

I don’t particularly like that outcome and I think the public understands that democrats have at least some leverage or they wouldn’t be acting in this way.

[AnimalMuppet]

The way this normally works is, when the House has passed something and the Senate won't, it goes to a reconciliation committee (with members from both houses), and they bring a compromise bill back, and both houses vote on it.

OK, the House passed something. The Senate has made it very clear that they won't pass it. Well, who's preventing the next step from happening? Speaker Johnson, that's who.

[bediger4000]

That's it, you've got it. Majority vote, take responsibility for both benefits and problems. Do away with the fig leaf of bipartisan consent.

[lesuorac]

Typically it does require bipartisan consent as the house and the senate are often not controlled by the same party.

The thing to note with the filibuster is that it's only in the senate because the house got rid of theirs a long time ago.

[bediger4000]

Sure, there are sessions where negotiation must happen between House and Senate. I personally think we should abolish the filibuster - it's undemocratic in the extreme. Republicans (only!) still have the "Hastert Rule" for the House, which is equally undemocratic, and named after a convicted sex offender.

I'm urging the current Senate, controlled by Republicans, the party also controlling House and Presidency, to get rid of the filibuster because then the ruling party could not escape responsibility for their legislative actions.