The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2332 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 113, 114, 115, 116, 117
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 4:55 pm 
Offline
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:45 pm
Posts: 29790
Location: the beach
Image


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 4:56 pm 
Offline
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 3213
Much obliged.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Calibrating
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:33 pm
Posts: 83621
Location: everybody needs to stop bragging about their mountains
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Good news, I'm pretty sure GH would get rid of the filibuster. So whenever he checks back in we should get a pretty good argument for the other side. :thumbsup:
As a matter of personal ideology, I suppose I shouldn't mind the filibuster since it helps to prevent a party from implementing too much of its agenda. But the Constitution already has a hefty number of separations of power (three branches of government, plus a bicameral legislature) and it's daunting enough to get the quadfecta on all of them. Adding in another veto point through extraconstitutional matters is just overkill.

I also think that once a party has at least 50 senators that are united on a considerable agenda, the filibuster will be gone. It could have happened in 2017 but the GOP couldn't get their caucus united. It could very well happen in 2021 if the Dems storm to victory in the Senate and they aren't dependent on Joe Manchin being the median vote.

By that logic shouldn't it have happened in 2010 when Scott Brown denied the Democrats their 60th senator in the middle of attempting to pass the ACA?

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster sticks around not just to protect the minority party but because it can provide a convenient excuse for the majority party when they aren't united enough to get stuff done: just blame the filibuster.

All the more reason to get rid of it.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6472
4/5 wrote:
By that logic shouldn't it have happened in 2010 when Scott Brown denied the Democrats their 60th senator in the middle of attempting to pass the ACA?
Just like Republicans in 2017, Dems weren't united enough to make it happen in 2010.

4/5 wrote:
I think an argument can be made that the filibuster sticks around not just to protect the minority party but because it can provide a convenient excuse for the majority party when they aren't united enough to get stuff done: just blame the filibuster.
This I completely agree with if they can't get 50 consistent votes for a broad agenda.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4245
durdencommatyler wrote:
4/5 wrote:
I think an argument can be made that the filibuster sticks around not just to protect the minority party but because it can provide a convenient excuse for the majority party when they aren't united enough to get stuff done: just blame the filibuster.

All the more reason to get rid of it.

Perhaps. I'm just suggesting that it has a role for both the majority and minority party at any given time, which suggest it'll stick around. On the other hand, it's getting easier to imagine one party being willing to blow it all up if doing so would facilitate passage of a legislative program they deem important enough.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 8:39 pm 
Offline
Future Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 03, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 3213
I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 8:48 pm 
Online
User avatar
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm
Posts: 41585
Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
is she dead yet?

_________________
verily, if life had no sense, and had I to choose nonsense, this would be the most desirable nonsense for me also.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4245
digster wrote:
I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster is the best protection Democrats have against entitlement programs getting decimated.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Fri July 17, 2020 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am
Posts: 6316
Location: Tristes Tropiques
4/5 wrote:
digster wrote:
I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster is the best protection Democrats have against entitlement programs getting decimated.


Instead they're simply being slowly chipped away at without the possibility of any replacement, because of the filibuster.

_________________
pepperwhiteMFC wrote:
Seems like Mickey has formed 4 decks worth of archetypes out of RMers, and he’s playing them off of each other as if to divine some sort of overall meaning to this place.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sat July 18, 2020 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4245
Mickey wrote:
4/5 wrote:
digster wrote:
I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster is the best protection Democrats have against entitlement programs getting decimated.


Instead they're simply being slowly chipped away at without the possibility of any replacement, because of the filibuster.

Also true. But considering the makeup of government over the past couple of decades and what appears to be red-state advantages in the Senate in the future, that might be the least-bad option.

_________________
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sat July 18, 2020 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am
Posts: 6316
Location: Tristes Tropiques
4/5 wrote:
Mickey wrote:
4/5 wrote:
digster wrote:
I think all those reasons to avoid abolishing the filibuster are correct; it replaces morass for wild swings back and forth. But it's still probably the least worst option, particularly for Democrats, who are going to continue to bear the brunt of the negative effects of a Senate that is increasingly unrepresentative of the country. I think there's only shitty options here, and it may be the least shitty.

I think an argument can be made that the filibuster is the best protection Democrats have against entitlement programs getting decimated.


Instead they're simply being slowly chipped away at without the possibility of any replacement, because of the filibuster.

Also true. But considering the makeup of government over the past couple of decades and what appears to be red-state advantages in the Senate in the future, that might be the least-bad option.


I don't disagree that the filibuster helps stave off the worst, but if you want anything like a second New Deal in the near future you're probably going to have to take an ax to the ol senate rules.

_________________
pepperwhiteMFC wrote:
Seems like Mickey has formed 4 decks worth of archetypes out of RMers, and he’s playing them off of each other as if to divine some sort of overall meaning to this place.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Sat July 25, 2020 2:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6472
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_08l1.pdf

The way I'd handle this is that you can't explicitly list places of worship in your gathering limits--either for an targeted exemption or a targeted restriction.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2332 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 113, 114, 115, 116, 117

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elliseamos, philpritchard and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Sat August 08, 2020 3:38 am