When I read, " Maybe stop whining about Biden’s age and vote next time." I loudly whispered "YES!" and all my office mates perked right up. This article was so invigorating to read, Justin!
The filibuster, holds, blue slips, ANYTHING that allows a single Senator to stop things has got to go.
The minority should have some voice. We do want to guard against the “tyranny of the majority” and make sure minority voices are heard. But the bar for being able to stop the Senate dead in its tracks should be higher than a single Tuberville. If you can’t rally at least, oh, 20% of your colleagues to join you then your view is not widely shared enough to stop things.
Should still be heard, but not allowed to stop things against the will of the 99% you couldn’t get to join you.
It must be nice to have no epistemological humility whatsoever and be able to be so sure that you are correct - (because of course your moral compass is the only correct one) that you are able to write things like “ House GOP’s impossible task of maintaining their majority” with a straight face. Impossible, huh?
Yes, I can see where if you are a mob rule majoritarian authoritarian who believe that government overreach solves most problems that her than causes them that you believe the filibuster is so horrible. But you clearly understand nothing about the checks and balances America’s Founders correctly understood are critical to prevent government tyranny and protect the rights of minorities from being trampled by the power of majorities.
Never said it was, did I? But acknowledge that the reason you want to eliminate the filibuster is that you want narrow majorities to push through policies. Which is the opposite of what the Founders wanted. They wanted government to move slowly.
So, again, if the Founders didn't want "narrow" majorities to pass policies, they would have put the filibuster in. They didn't. So your claim that a non-filibuster government is the opposite of what they wanted is based on...what? What are you basing this claim on? Be specific. What, exactly, makes you say the Founders did not want narrow majorities to pass laws?
…but you could try reading the Federalist Papers if you want to learn more of the backstory behind the country’s founding and concerns about not recreating the tyranny of the British king.
Of course this makes so much sense, it’s almost too difficult to enact. That Republicans will abuse a simple-democracy Senate goes without saying. This Republican Party will abuse anything. As a reason to not do something, its value has significantly diminished.
But for the hesitant out there, let me offer a compromise, one I call “lowering the pitcher’s mound “. In 1968, Major League Baseball decided that pitchers had gotten so good that the balance of the game was off. So they lowered the height of the pitcher’s mound from 15” to 10”, to reduce the advantage that the height provided.
I propose changing the threshold for cloture from 60 to 55. This is not radical. Up until 1975, the threshold was 2/3; it was lowered to 3/5 (not specifically 60) at that time. (So, if, say, DC or PR became States, the threshold would become 61.) This would make it more difficult, although still possible, to use the cloture rule to obstruct something genuinely popular — or prevent something genuinely horrible. 🤔😉😊
We need to expand the courts just as a matter of population growth, something Republicans have been blocking because a broken court system means they can say government doesn't work. The same game they've been playing for the last 50 years.
Before expanding them we need a through spring cleaning. Supreme Court justices just cannot behave as a few of these have been and you all know of their misbehavior, the kinds of things they’ve been doing cannot be allowed. I’m not sure how but it must be done and they should know before being sworn into the highest court in the land that they cannot lead private lives like ordinary citizens, they must be willing to adhere to restrictions of their station, and theirs a long list starting with gifts, trips or any such suspicious behavior. That will weed out some unfit for the office.
Clean up that court first. Then add members accordingly.
Expand SCOTUS, but not just by adding some arbitrary number of seats. And don't have that as the only reform.
Packing the court just opens the door for the next Republican congress to do the same. There needs to be a clear rationale (beyond countering the blatant corruption of the current members). As I understand it it was increased to the current 9 to match the number of appeals districts. Instead of just "add four seats" the law Congress passes should be "SC Justices = appeals districts", of which there are currently 13.
Plus, term limits, an ethics policy with actual consequences, mandatory recusals, etc.
Strict policy should be written up for Supreme Court members to totally adhere to. They have the most important role in the country so how can they be allowed to behave in suspicious ways as a couple of them, especially one, has been doing for years. He’ll no! No no no!
They are the last stop! The Mt Everest of our government. They should be willing going in to live a life as straight and narrow as possible and their duties should come before even their spouse and children. The swearing in of a member should include all the restrictions requiring them to lead an unblemished life or be removed, without any drawn out hearings. Theirs is a job to important to take lightly as they’ve seemed to be doing of late. Some may say well they have a life too. No! No they don’t once they accept the responsibility of the office.
When I read, " Maybe stop whining about Biden’s age and vote next time." I loudly whispered "YES!" and all my office mates perked right up. This article was so invigorating to read, Justin!
It's how I earn my Hillary Bux™. ;)
“how the filibuster is a guardrail against extremism”
Saw what now? Mr Smith has not gone to Washington in a very long time. Instead of “guardrail against” it should be “tool of”.
Exactly.
Exactly Christopher!
The filibuster, holds, blue slips, ANYTHING that allows a single Senator to stop things has got to go.
The minority should have some voice. We do want to guard against the “tyranny of the majority” and make sure minority voices are heard. But the bar for being able to stop the Senate dead in its tracks should be higher than a single Tuberville. If you can’t rally at least, oh, 20% of your colleagues to join you then your view is not widely shared enough to stop things.
Should still be heard, but not allowed to stop things against the will of the 99% you couldn’t get to join you.
And you should have to get up and defend it in person. If you're not willing to make your case in front of the nation, you don't get to obstruct.
Yes. That, too.
If you’re going to filibust, there needs to be an effort put into it. (Plus the aforementioned more than one person involved.)
But rather than fixing the filibuster, it should just go. No need to figure out how to deal with the problem if you just kill the problem entirely.
He's a troll.
Tyranny of the majority isn't a real thing🙄 That's a racist dog whistle.
He's not a troll.
He absolutely is.
As I said the phrase, tyranny of the majority, is a racist dog whistle.
Zzzzzz. Boring.
Tell you’re desperate for attention without telling me you’re desperate for attention.
You! A troll? Neva!
Exactly!
There is no such thing as tyranny of the majority 🤡
Philly Buster burgers for dinner tonight?
It must be nice to have no epistemological humility whatsoever and be able to be so sure that you are correct - (because of course your moral compass is the only correct one) that you are able to write things like “ House GOP’s impossible task of maintaining their majority” with a straight face. Impossible, huh?
Yes, I can see where if you are a mob rule majoritarian authoritarian who believe that government overreach solves most problems that her than causes them that you believe the filibuster is so horrible. But you clearly understand nothing about the checks and balances America’s Founders correctly understood are critical to prevent government tyranny and protect the rights of minorities from being trampled by the power of majorities.
Have a great day!
Hey, while you're archly tossing the Founders around, tell me again: Which part of the Constitution has the filibuster in it?
Never said it was, did I? But acknowledge that the reason you want to eliminate the filibuster is that you want narrow majorities to push through policies. Which is the opposite of what the Founders wanted. They wanted government to move slowly.
So, again, if the Founders didn't want "narrow" majorities to pass policies, they would have put the filibuster in. They didn't. So your claim that a non-filibuster government is the opposite of what they wanted is based on...what? What are you basing this claim on? Be specific. What, exactly, makes you say the Founders did not want narrow majorities to pass laws?
Nothing at all. You are correct. I am ignorant.
…but you could try reading the Federalist Papers if you want to learn more of the backstory behind the country’s founding and concerns about not recreating the tyranny of the British king.
How would narrow majorities in Congress recreate the tyranny of a king?
Please be specific.
Then please explain why allowing a minority to dictate policy is not tyranny.
I couldn't agree more👏👏👏
Pillar of centrism? Bah, humbug. If Manchin was anything, it was a DINO.
Of course this makes so much sense, it’s almost too difficult to enact. That Republicans will abuse a simple-democracy Senate goes without saying. This Republican Party will abuse anything. As a reason to not do something, its value has significantly diminished.
But for the hesitant out there, let me offer a compromise, one I call “lowering the pitcher’s mound “. In 1968, Major League Baseball decided that pitchers had gotten so good that the balance of the game was off. So they lowered the height of the pitcher’s mound from 15” to 10”, to reduce the advantage that the height provided.
I propose changing the threshold for cloture from 60 to 55. This is not radical. Up until 1975, the threshold was 2/3; it was lowered to 3/5 (not specifically 60) at that time. (So, if, say, DC or PR became States, the threshold would become 61.) This would make it more difficult, although still possible, to use the cloture rule to obstruct something genuinely popular — or prevent something genuinely horrible. 🤔😉😊
We need to expand the courts just as a matter of population growth, something Republicans have been blocking because a broken court system means they can say government doesn't work. The same game they've been playing for the last 50 years.
Before expanding them we need a through spring cleaning. Supreme Court justices just cannot behave as a few of these have been and you all know of their misbehavior, the kinds of things they’ve been doing cannot be allowed. I’m not sure how but it must be done and they should know before being sworn into the highest court in the land that they cannot lead private lives like ordinary citizens, they must be willing to adhere to restrictions of their station, and theirs a long list starting with gifts, trips or any such suspicious behavior. That will weed out some unfit for the office.
Clean up that court first. Then add members accordingly.
Expand SCOTUS, but not just by adding some arbitrary number of seats. And don't have that as the only reform.
Packing the court just opens the door for the next Republican congress to do the same. There needs to be a clear rationale (beyond countering the blatant corruption of the current members). As I understand it it was increased to the current 9 to match the number of appeals districts. Instead of just "add four seats" the law Congress passes should be "SC Justices = appeals districts", of which there are currently 13.
Plus, term limits, an ethics policy with actual consequences, mandatory recusals, etc.
Strict policy should be written up for Supreme Court members to totally adhere to. They have the most important role in the country so how can they be allowed to behave in suspicious ways as a couple of them, especially one, has been doing for years. He’ll no! No no no!
They are the last stop! The Mt Everest of our government. They should be willing going in to live a life as straight and narrow as possible and their duties should come before even their spouse and children. The swearing in of a member should include all the restrictions requiring them to lead an unblemished life or be removed, without any drawn out hearings. Theirs is a job to important to take lightly as they’ve seemed to be doing of late. Some may say well they have a life too. No! No they don’t once they accept the responsibility of the office.
Why don’t you use their names?
We need to call them in their shit, and that means not being hesitant to call out “especially one” and any others by name.