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.
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.
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.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
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.
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
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 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
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
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
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 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.
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
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.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
Early reports that RBG has died.
[Mario Kart voice] Here a'we go!
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Mickey wrote:
Early reports that RBG has died.
[Mario Kart voice] Here a'we go!
Here we go indeed.
I could see something like this: --Trump appoints Amy Coney Barrett and the Republican controlled Senate quickly approves her, perhaps before the election. --Dems win back the presidency and the Senate and retaliate by packing the Court with extreme prejudice.
We'll see how that holds up in a year or two from now.
_________________ "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
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am Posts: 9712 Location: Tristes Tropiques
Green Habit wrote:
Mickey wrote:
Early reports that RBG has died.
[Mario Kart voice] Here a'we go!
Here we go indeed.
I could see something like this: --Trump appoints Amy Coney Barrett and the Republican controlled Senate quickly approves her, perhaps before the election. --Dems win back the presidency and the Senate and retaliate by packing the Court with extreme prejudice.
We'll see how that holds up in a year or two from now.
Is there enough time to confirm a nominee before the election?
_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
I could see something like this: --Trump appoints Amy Coney Barrett and the Republican controlled Senate quickly approves her, perhaps before the election. --Dems win back the presidency and the Senate and retaliate by packing the Court with extreme prejudice.
We'll see how that holds up in a year or two from now.
Is there enough time to confirm a nominee before the election?
Something tells me they're going to make time. Might even mean working weekends.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 39 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
