I agree with dumping the filibuster, now and then. It's just funny that people here are pretending to make a moral case for eliminating it, when none of them were doing that in 2017-2018. Give me a break. It's a means to an end, not a principled position. If the parties were reversed, you'd be arguing in favor of the filibuster. I also think the Senate is redundant in its current form (it's popularly elected just like the House, only with a higher power concentration). When senators were elected by state legislatures, it had a purpose and representation distinct from the House. Trump was right of course that the moment the Dems got the Senate, they would try this.
The filibuster was to protect racist Jim Crow laws, the founders were fine with a simple majority. DD
I was largely replying to dobro citing the Federalist papers in opposition to the filibuster. Obviously it is an argument in favor of the filibuster. The half that has 50 Republican senators, as opposed to the half that has 50 Democrat senators. 25 states each (though some are split). Half of the states in the country. I don't even have one senator. Amash was Libertarian for a little bit, but he was the only ever Congressman from the party, and in the House of Representatives. Rand Paul is the closest we get. The filibuster predated the black codes, in fact is was used before the civil war. It was used to protect Jim Crow laws among other things, but not created for that purpose.
Turley on the filibuster "An Ideal Rule for the Age of Rage? Critics May Be Making the Best Argument For Keeping The Filibuster": https://jonathanturley.org/2021/06/...the-best-argument-for-keeping-the-filibuster/
Turley with 200 iq wanting pent up rage from growing wealth inequality to be resolved with sporadic riots that eventually turn into violent revolution rather than legislative action that can resolve some of these issues. Smart dude.
The Constitution was a great document for its day, much better than rules by unelected hereditary monarchs. It may be the least democratic of all constitutions of countries interested in democracy. You do have travesties of perfect on paper constitutions which are seldom followed. We have many flaws, the 19 smallest states with a population equivalent to CA having 38 senators, and controlling the currently 5 unelected S. Ct judges empowered to negate laws passed by the democratically elected Congress and president etc. The worst flaw is to make the Constitution virtually impossible to amend. We are having a harder and harder time working around this ancient flawed document.
Yes. We already have a the mechanism in place that limits majority rule with each state getting two senators. The fillibuster, gerrymandering, the electoral college triple and quadruple dips into the notion to protect us from majority rule which is signficantly swinging in the other extreme to where we now have minority rule. How about we only have one mechanism to limit the power of the majority instead of quadruple dipping with 4?
No.... Manchin is exactly the type of Senator from the type of state that holds this country back, especially in the context of China. These small, rural state senators consistently vote for trillions to spend on the war on terror then go soft when asked to invest trillions in its citizens. Make believe austerity policies (Trump and the GOP got us back to $1 trillion deficits before Covid) keeps the US back while China has modernized its country. I am not saying we need to brand new high speed rail connecting our major cities, but the normal maintenance we've been putting off would be nice... at the very least.
Republicans play cynical politics. They dump any rule or bend anything they can to get what they want. They will even engineer election fraud to win - we're seeing that. If the worst thing the Dems do it get rid of the filibuster, then so be it. Our democracy is under attack, now isn't the time for philosophical arguments.
Not really the same. The House gives you proportional representation (though mucked up with gerrymandering). Senate gives you a winner-take-all simple majority choice. That hasn't even changed going from being elected by state legislatures to direct elections because state legislature election is also a winner-take-all simple majority choice. House and Senate definitely give you two different cuts of the electorate. Evidenced by the fact that it isn't uncommon for different parties to control each chamber.
related https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/06/are-democrats-against-voter-fraud-it-all-depends.php
Where is the voter fraud that is occuring? I don't get why people don't make the link between all these additional restrictions on the best run election system in the world which also happens to help their side win elections more by suppressing votes. You're too smart not to see that.
Interesting article but it goes against the claim that Manchin is in the pocket of the Kochs, if he was they would have no reason to pressure him publicly. That article read a lot like an opinion piece but still had some good info.
The founders were also fine with slavery and women having no rights. Don't know why that should mean much.
In the pockets of Kochs... influenced by the Kochs.... same thing. The Koch industrialists had a big hand in the war on coal narrative in coal country.
No it's not the same thing. If the Kochs have an influence on his constituents how does he get reelected if he goes against them? It just seems there is a lot of picking and choosing regarding Manchins record and a lot of connecting the dots going on. Being in the pocket of the Kochs means voting for their agenda in lockstep.
