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.
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 didnтАЩt follow the HouseтАЩs 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. ItтАЩs 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.
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 didnтАЩt follow the HouseтАЩs 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. ItтАЩs 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.