ListNook

B-Z_B-S Mar 26, 2026 +64

No way in hell enough of the Senate GOP will agree to end the filibuster. It's their safeguard for if the Democrats take the Senate, and that's enough of an uncertainty that most won't risk it. Senators tend to be extremely cautious.

64

throwawayurwaste Mar 26, 2026 +24

I also sincerely wonder if the poltax would help Republicans as much as they think it will. Sure it disenfranchises minority communities, but it also hurts rural white uneducated poor voters who are the MAGA base. How many farmers in the middle of the corn fields have a passport and want to drive 150mi and pay $150 to get one.

24

learns_the_hard_way Mar 26, 2026 +41

Main issue is around enforcement. I'm sure they will find a way to not enforce this in deep red MAGA filled regions

41

iguanaman8988 Mar 26, 2026 +7

That’s how they’re handling ICE deployment. You don’t ever hear about them harassing people in small, conservative town, in red states. They just send them to blue cities/states/airports.

7

TheIndoorCat5 Mar 26, 2026 +6

I live in El Paso TX. I can see Mexico from the highway 5 minutes from my house. We have a lot less ICE activity here than blue cities.

6

Shogouki Mar 26, 2026 +10

Honestly it's much less about the poll tax, which as others have pointed out will almost certainly be enforced selectively, but that the Federal government will force all states to send their voter rolls allowing the Federal government the opportunity to purge voters from it. Doing so selectively in key districts in swing states could keep the GOP in power indefinitely. I don't think the Senate GOP or the Supreme Court will do anything to stop that.

10

StephanXX Mar 26, 2026 +8

Selective enforcement. Blue counties in red states will experience (even more) frequent voter roll purges. The USPS will suddenly experience massive funding issues in purple and blue states. DMV offices in red urban areas will be mysteriously short staffed and have hours of operation cut in the six month window prior to elections. ICE will be tasked with "verifying" identification documents at the polls, ensuring only the "right" people make it into the voting booth. Actually protecting citizens voter rights has never been the goal and the politicians pushing hardest for these rules are _bragging_ about how it will prevent Democrats from ever taking power again. The filibuster won't be necessary to the GOP anymore, because Democrats will never achieve a Senate majority again.

8

Alternative-Bat-2462 Mar 26, 2026 +2

Having been around both, I’ve found that the rural uneducated tend to be more dumb / illiterate and the minority communities as you said have been demotivated but tend to be very crafty in finding ways to get what they want.

2

MyNameCannotBeSpoken Mar 26, 2026 +1

Was visiting Dublin late last year and the tour guide says, "We still love Americans, we know Trump supporters don't have passports."

1

MessyPoopMcGee Mar 26, 2026 +5

They're desperate. If they lose, they could very well lose power for decades.

5

MaximumExercise3772 Mar 26, 2026 +6

who says they won't just reinstate it after getting what they need?

6

BloodRedRook Mar 26, 2026 +18

The fillibuster isn't a law, it's a tradition. Once a tradition is broken, it's done.

18

Moccus Mar 26, 2026 +20

There would be no point reinstating it. The Democrats would just get rid of it again once they regained power.

20

MaximumExercise3772 Mar 26, 2026 +9

you might be missing the point of their efforts here

9

Moccus Mar 26, 2026 +10

In that case, it still makes no sense to reinstate it.

10

MaximumExercise3772 Mar 26, 2026 -5

whats your point? you are about to see a country with less voters. eventually this will be to the detriment of MANY and beneficial to a very small (already) selected group

-5

Moccus Mar 26, 2026 +13

My point is it makes no sense in any scenario for them to reinstate the filibuster after removing it. Pretty simple.

13

MaximumExercise3772 Mar 26, 2026

You're probably not wrong. Absolute majorities - legitmate as well as illegitimate's - can't be stopped by the filibuster. Mere semantics from there on

0

karmavorous Mar 26, 2026 +6

The Democrats would reinstate it unilaterally *to restore order* or some shit like that. *Recommitting to our valued institutions* or something like that. They would run on that shit. They would nuke the filibuster to reinstate the filibuster. Without the filibuster, Democrats would have no excuse for their failure to ever get anything done for working class people.

6

meTspysball Mar 26, 2026 +1

Dems were the first to nuke it for \~\~SCOTUS\~\~ federal judiciary nominees \[edit: McConnell nuked it for SCOTUS\]. It’s not clear that was a good idea for Dems in the long run. Senators are sensitive to that and having to run state-wide and only every 6 years makes them more cautious and interested in maintaining the status quo, on average.

1

SandsShifter Mar 26, 2026 +4

Dems, and by that I mean Harry Reid, nuked it for other judicial appointments. It was Turtle McConnell that nuked it for Supreme Court justices.

4

canadiuman Mar 26, 2026 +1

And they only did it because McConnell was refusing to let judicial appointments through to save up openings for the next Republican president.

1

gibbenskd Mar 26, 2026 +2

You’re close, but it wasn’t Supreme Court nominees, it was just lower federal judges and it was because McConnell was refusing any nominations from proceed under Obama and there was a massive backlog of appointments and empty seats. When Trump was elected McConnell used it as excuse to end it for the Supreme Court to make sure Gorsuch wasn’t blocked. It’s one Republicans favorite moves force democrats to change rules because they’re obstructing everything and then use the president to get what they really want.

2

Lob-Star Mar 26, 2026 +6

They want to steal elections. They aren't worried about what happens next once they establish and authoritarian autocracy.

6

superanth Mar 26, 2026 -1

This. ^

-1

Far_Adeptness9884 Mar 26, 2026 +1

But they are trying to rig it so the Democrats never have power again.

1

hazardling Mar 26, 2026 +2

Even if they did pass it, wouldnt it proportionally harm their own voters? Wouldn't they think MAGA Republicans are less likely to have passports? I guess the real issue is states having to turn over their voter rolls. Absolutely disgusting what they are trying to do with this bullshit bill.

2

Ask_DontTell Mar 26, 2026 +2

the plan seems to be to make it so the Dems can't take anything ...

2

freeradioforall Mar 26, 2026 +2

You don’t think they will end the fillibuster to pass there agenda, then pass a new law that ends the filibuster for any future dem congress??

2

BloodRedRook Mar 26, 2026 +1

The fillibuster isn't a law, it's essentially a gentleman's agreement between both sides in senate.

1

thevoiceinsidemyhead Mar 27, 2026 +2

Is there anything they havent eventually given to trump?

2

Snagglespoof Mar 26, 2026 +1

Still funny to watch them try

1

whatproblems Mar 26, 2026 +1

seems they’re not on the program to make trump dictator for life

1

dadthewisest Mar 26, 2026 +13

Republicans don't want to pass the SAVE act -- especially those in older counties. They want to pretend to pass it, but if you get rid of the filibuster they still won't vote for it.

13

Healthy_Intention_92 Mar 26, 2026 +4

Murkowski in particular knows if it passes she's complete toast; urban voters in Anchorage and Fairbanks that skew left and are more likely to be world travelers with passports would absolutely dominate the conservative voters out in the bush who have never set foot outside their village. It would be a bloodbath.

4

PsychGuy17 Mar 26, 2026 +1

The irony is that she has benefited from well informed voters more than most senators. She's only in office because she won as a write-in when a worse conservative candidate won the primary. The courts had to determine if she would get misspelled write in votes like Murkowsky that were clearly for her, but just a little bit wrong.

1

brain_overclocked Mar 26, 2026 +8

>So now Trump and some of his allies are returning to square one, saying it’s time to bust up the filibuster so Republicans can pass the voter suppression measure. >But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has repeatedly shot down proposals to gut the filibuster, saying the idea would be a GOP own goal. “Throughout history, it’s protected Republicans and conservative priorities and principles a lot more often than it’s protected Democrats,” Thune said to reporters earlier this month. >Other Republican senators have publicly backed Thune on this point. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) supports the SAVE America Act but has said it’s not worth sacrificing the filibuster. Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has lambasted the lengthy floor debate on the SAVE America Act as a waste of time, has similarly warned that killing the filibuster would be bad for Republicans. >Moreover, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) opposes the bill outright, saying the documentary proof of citizenship requirements on registration would wreak havoc on remote Alaskan voters. And former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to kill the filibuster to pass legislation he actually liked, so he’s unlikely to do so here for a bill he dislikes. >The bill, which passed the House in February, would force states to turn over sensitive registration records to the Department of Homeland Security and conduct monthly purges of their voter rolls. Trump has also demanded the measure include bans on universal mail-in ballots, trans athletes in women’s sports and gender-affirming care. >The SAVE America Act’s proponents argue it’s needed to ensure noncitizens cannot vote, even though there is no evidence of unnaturalized immigrants intentionally casting ballots in significant numbers. Meanwhile, opponents note that the millions of voters who lack easy access to a passport or birth certificate for providing DPOC could be disenfranchised if it’s enacted. The legislation would also cause headaches for tens of millions of voters when they update their registrations and tax already overburdened election administrators.

8

KafeenHedake Mar 26, 2026 +11

“Throughout history, it’s protected Republicans and conservative priorities and principles a lot more often than it’s protected Democrats" No shit. It's almost like liberal policies are more popular than conservative ones, and the right's only trick is rigging the system against the majority.

11

superanth Mar 26, 2026 +5

>While reconciliation allows the Senate to pass legislation with just a simple majority, the proposals must be budgetary in nature. Even if the SAVE America Act’s dictates were turned into conditions on federal grants, it’s unlikely that they would qualify under the Senate’s rules. When have the rules and regulation of the government ever stopped them from doing something?

5

Moccus Mar 26, 2026 +10

Pretty often actually. Remember when they tried to repeal the ACA via reconciliation, and the parliamentarian kept telling them they had to get rid of stuff because it wasn't budgetary? They had to keep going off into a side room to rewrite the bill, and it even pissed off some Republicans how ridiculous the process of trying to get the repeal passed was. They ultimately ran out of time and had to give up.

10

throwawayurwaste Mar 26, 2026 +3

The rules are made up, but you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. The filibuster rule can be ended at any time by 51 votes, no one has done that because it means when the opposition is in power nothing stops them from passing their own laws. Frankly I think the filibuster should have been removed a long time ago, and if passing this unconstitutional piece of c*** poll tax Jim crow 2.0 bill removes it then at least it did some good

3

xicor Mar 26, 2026 +1

This is what I believe too...it would be bad in the short term but better in the long run

1

MasterK999 Mar 26, 2026 +3

I wish they would. The SAVE act will not pass constitutional muster and will not save them from what is coming. If the GOP kills the fillibuster then they will regret it in 2028.

3

LowellForCongress Mar 26, 2026 +3

Was thinking the same, but current SCOTUS seems to be a little skewed at times…

3

WetFinsFine Mar 26, 2026 +1

get it through yer thick skulls GOP, the people, the citizens, say f*** SAVE

1

Logical-Let-7026 Mar 26, 2026 +2

I am sure there are those that intend to not need the filibuster after the full fascist takeover happens, but some likely think that there is a chance democrats will stomp come November despite the POS bill passing.

2

Grizkniz Mar 26, 2026 +1

This shit is dead in the water.

1

Inevitable_Nerve_638 Mar 26, 2026 +1

Do it, pussies. You'll never hold a majority ever again once it's gone.

1

Miserable_Pie_8337 Mar 26, 2026 +1

*Disenfranchise Americans Act

1

Individual-Bench-634 Mar 26, 2026 +1

They are so short sighted. Dumbasses it will effect your base the most!

1

stillthrowinitallawa Mar 26, 2026 +1

So the usual suspects (Collins, Murkowski) will flip like they always do and pass the bill.

1

TrueGlich Mar 26, 2026 +1

Nuking the filibuster whould completely chage the game of congress. They whould be way more responsible for there actions. Right now they can vote for things they don't really want as long as they know it won't pass and can vote yes on things there constituent's want but there doners don't fi they know its pointless.

1

MonkeyVine7 Mar 27, 2026 +1

Please dont use the word 'nuking' in this political climate. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

1

Frustrated by filibuster, Trump and MAGA allies eye nuking it to pass SAVE America Act

💬 Send a Message

53 Comments