Don’t mistake Progressives for the base. They aren’t even Democrats. The threats to stay home from the polls if they don’t get the pony they want are juvenile. They’re Bernie Bros who think they earned a place at the table by voting for the right candidate, both grudgingly and once. We wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t tanked Hillary.
Don’t mistake Progressives for the base. They aren’t even Democrats. The threats to stay home from the polls if they don’t get the pony they want are juvenile. They’re Bernie Bros who think they earned a place at the table by voting for the right candidate, both grudgingly and once. We wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t tanked Hillary.
Roe is a tragedy. I lived pre-Roe, I marched, I protested, and I escorted patients. I had an abortion. I have daughters and a granddaughter. And I am a lawyer who understands that no law allows the president to fix this. Period. The only hope is to put enough senators in place to waive the filibuster as to reproductive rights, and to keep the House by however slim a margin. We need to ignore the braying from the Left and focus on the possible.
The other hope is to somehow have reasonable rules implemented at SCOTUS. That won't happen either.
I do think SCOTUS should be expanded to the number of appellate courts. But it is probably too little too late. The other option is to simply agree that nobody is going to pay any attention to rulings from SCOTUS as long as they are ruled by right-wing ideology. Now THAT I'd love to see!
If every Republican ignores all the rules, and everyone else obeys them, where does everyone else end up? (Hint: totalitarianism)
I think we're way down that road, given SCOTUS obvious contempt for society and Constitution and Mitch's totally shredding it over Merrick Garland (final straw).
To me, America has become officially lawless, with SCOTUS's final week's performance.
Can't disagree, sadly. I think we have some really choppy waters ahead. Half the country is in it for the LOLS, one third is humming along as though everything is fine, and the other third are wondering when they can start shooting. https://wapo.st/3IsgJqJ
Professor Nikolas Bowie, on Dahlia Lithwick's Amicus podcast, made an excellent case for abolishing the filibuster. He blames a lot of the situation with SCOTUS on the inability of Congress to legislate.
I can definitely see a strong argument for this. And yet, there may be something to be said for federal law not drastically changing every time a new majority takes control in Congress.
Fun fact: there used to be a type of filibuster in the House too called the disappearing quorum. It was abolished in 1890 in order to pass a civil rights bill. However, the Senate didn’t follow the House’s lead and so we got another 75 years of Jim Crow.
I disagree that laws would change back & forth. They still have to get through both Houses of Congress and a presidential signature. Every election brings new issues to the fore while others recede. It’s not hard to imagine swing districts Republicans refusing to vote for a national abortion ban.
Thanks for the history. Yeah, I think that whatever party is in the minority definitely loves the filibuster, and I'm sure that's what has kept it around - anticipating the next election cycle and losing power. But shouldn't we have a government that can actually function and a legislative body that can do its job? We shouldn't require a "super" majority - just like we don't require a supermajority for someone to get elected.
As long as you elect people who refuse to do the job of governance, there's not much to be done but hope you're not in the firing line. Govt works when it is peopled by those with at least some honesty, some principles and some understanding of governance and desire to do the will of the voters. Govt is made up of humans, after all; and they are made up of human nature which by and large is pretty sucky these days.
Waiting the filibuster for a particular issue seems like one step from removing it altogether, which it seems like the Republicans would do if the Dems "carved out" an exception.
Seems to me all or nothing. Either maintain the filibuster or seek to get rid of it. Curious your thoughts on that.
Exactly. There's precisely 0.01% chance that if the Dems make a filibuster exception, that McConnell won't toss it completely.
And, oddly, that small chance is that McConnell needs the filibuster in place in order to continue obstructing. Now and for the foreseeable future, the filibuster is required for when the GOP is in the minority.
McConnell tossed it for Justices after Reid tossed it for federal judges.
Just get rid of it. Make the minority party work for the votes to pass legislation. I think the Dems will keep the Senate, which puts McConnell closer to mortality. He may never be ML again. There isn’t anybody else as canny as he is, except maybe Grassley and they certainly aren’t going to make PeePaw ML.
Get rid of the filibuster and make them get back to actually working.
It's an interesting procedural rule which the minority is very much motivated to have in place. I have mixed feelings about it. Bottom line, it seems like we should be a nation of majority rule - not requiring "super" majority rule.
I'd favor a rule where nothing became law without 10% of the opposing party's support. Laws aren't meant to be willy-nilly easy. They also are not meant to give one party, minority or majority, totalitarian rule which Mitch essentially has had for 20 years or so.
Disagree with this but understand your sentiment. I think the problem is that we don’t do enough. I also think 10% is misleading. If you got to Wyoming senators that would represent like .1% of the population. If you got to California that is >10% of the population. Hard to make the math work with the population
Get rid of it. Make politicians put their money where their mouth is. If republicans pass crazy shit, let them suffer at the ballot box. Same goes for democrats. I’ve come the conclusion that a lot of our problems are caused by inaction not too much legislation.
I hear ya. Sometimes I wish we'd just go with a parliamentarian system. (Yeah, I know, grass is always greener.)
There is a, gulp, *compromise* approach: make the filibuster Jimmy Stewart again! Perhaps if conducting a filibuster were sufficiently painful, it would actually fulfil its promise as suggested by its supporters.
Don’t mistake Progressives for the base. They aren’t even Democrats. The threats to stay home from the polls if they don’t get the pony they want are juvenile. They’re Bernie Bros who think they earned a place at the table by voting for the right candidate, both grudgingly and once. We wouldn’t be here if they hadn’t tanked Hillary.
Roe is a tragedy. I lived pre-Roe, I marched, I protested, and I escorted patients. I had an abortion. I have daughters and a granddaughter. And I am a lawyer who understands that no law allows the president to fix this. Period. The only hope is to put enough senators in place to waive the filibuster as to reproductive rights, and to keep the House by however slim a margin. We need to ignore the braying from the Left and focus on the possible.
The other hope is to somehow have reasonable rules implemented at SCOTUS. That won't happen either.
I do think SCOTUS should be expanded to the number of appellate courts. But it is probably too little too late. The other option is to simply agree that nobody is going to pay any attention to rulings from SCOTUS as long as they are ruled by right-wing ideology. Now THAT I'd love to see!
We're already headed down that road. If everyone ignores the rules, where do we end up?
Let me ask it this way:
If every Republican ignores all the rules, and everyone else obeys them, where does everyone else end up? (Hint: totalitarianism)
I think we're way down that road, given SCOTUS obvious contempt for society and Constitution and Mitch's totally shredding it over Merrick Garland (final straw).
To me, America has become officially lawless, with SCOTUS's final week's performance.
Can't disagree, sadly. I think we have some really choppy waters ahead. Half the country is in it for the LOLS, one third is humming along as though everything is fine, and the other third are wondering when they can start shooting. https://wapo.st/3IsgJqJ
Sorry, math isn't my strong point, speaking of LOLs.
Professor Nikolas Bowie, on Dahlia Lithwick's Amicus podcast, made an excellent case for abolishing the filibuster. He blames a lot of the situation with SCOTUS on the inability of Congress to legislate.
I can definitely see a strong argument for this. And yet, there may be something to be said for federal law not drastically changing every time a new majority takes control in Congress.
Fun fact: there used to be a type of filibuster in the House too called the disappearing quorum. It was abolished in 1890 in order to pass a civil rights bill. However, the Senate didn’t follow the House’s lead and so we got another 75 years of Jim Crow.
I disagree that laws would change back & forth. They still have to get through both Houses of Congress and a presidential signature. Every election brings new issues to the fore while others recede. It’s not hard to imagine swing districts Republicans refusing to vote for a national abortion ban.
Thanks for the history. Yeah, I think that whatever party is in the minority definitely loves the filibuster, and I'm sure that's what has kept it around - anticipating the next election cycle and losing power. But shouldn't we have a government that can actually function and a legislative body that can do its job? We shouldn't require a "super" majority - just like we don't require a supermajority for someone to get elected.
As long as you elect people who refuse to do the job of governance, there's not much to be done but hope you're not in the firing line. Govt works when it is peopled by those with at least some honesty, some principles and some understanding of governance and desire to do the will of the voters. Govt is made up of humans, after all; and they are made up of human nature which by and large is pretty sucky these days.
Waiting the filibuster for a particular issue seems like one step from removing it altogether, which it seems like the Republicans would do if the Dems "carved out" an exception.
Seems to me all or nothing. Either maintain the filibuster or seek to get rid of it. Curious your thoughts on that.
Exactly. There's precisely 0.01% chance that if the Dems make a filibuster exception, that McConnell won't toss it completely.
And, oddly, that small chance is that McConnell needs the filibuster in place in order to continue obstructing. Now and for the foreseeable future, the filibuster is required for when the GOP is in the minority.
McConnell tossed it for Justices after Reid tossed it for federal judges.
Just get rid of it. Make the minority party work for the votes to pass legislation. I think the Dems will keep the Senate, which puts McConnell closer to mortality. He may never be ML again. There isn’t anybody else as canny as he is, except maybe Grassley and they certainly aren’t going to make PeePaw ML.
Get rid of the filibuster and make them get back to actually working.
Just make them actually filibuster if they do it! Stand there and talk until they drop. Used to be fun to watch esp when you couldn't sleep.
That’s my hope. Could fail spectacularly but got to try something
Right. I meant to write "waiving."
It's an interesting procedural rule which the minority is very much motivated to have in place. I have mixed feelings about it. Bottom line, it seems like we should be a nation of majority rule - not requiring "super" majority rule.
I'd favor a rule where nothing became law without 10% of the opposing party's support. Laws aren't meant to be willy-nilly easy. They also are not meant to give one party, minority or majority, totalitarian rule which Mitch essentially has had for 20 years or so.
Disagree with this but understand your sentiment. I think the problem is that we don’t do enough. I also think 10% is misleading. If you got to Wyoming senators that would represent like .1% of the population. If you got to California that is >10% of the population. Hard to make the math work with the population
Get rid of it. Make politicians put their money where their mouth is. If republicans pass crazy shit, let them suffer at the ballot box. Same goes for democrats. I’ve come the conclusion that a lot of our problems are caused by inaction not too much legislation.
I hear ya. Sometimes I wish we'd just go with a parliamentarian system. (Yeah, I know, grass is always greener.)
There is a, gulp, *compromise* approach: make the filibuster Jimmy Stewart again! Perhaps if conducting a filibuster were sufficiently painful, it would actually fulfil its promise as suggested by its supporters.
Yeah, but Ted "Green Eggs and Ham" Cruz is still there. Painful for most of the country, but not for him.