Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DrPhilly

Filibuster

What to do  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Make your pick



Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The Senate itself gives a stronger voice to a minority of citizens. By itself it was the nod to the need for some kind of bulwark against the tyranny of a slim majority.

 

Precisely, and I truly believe that one of the reasons we've been able to maintain such vast nation for so long under the oldest constitution in the world is the uniquely federated system that we have. We have the strength of union combined with a good degree of minority rights and home rule in the states. By ensuring that the minority has sufficient leverage, we guard against chaos and a total breakdown of our democratic institutions that could ultimately lead to domestic disturbances and civil wars. It promotes stability. But while I agree with the basic principle of ensuring a voice for the minority, I believe that it is too disproportionate, too outsized for us to continue functioning as a reliably democratic republic. I feel similar consternation in regards to both the filibuster and the Electoral College.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot take: keep the cloture rules the same as it can only help to ensure that Congress remains gridlocked for the sake of not getting anything done. 
 

Pros: the legislature will have trouble enacting "need to do something” legislation, keeps the government from getting bigger. 
 

Cons: keeps the legislature from doing something that actually needs to be done. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Precisely, and I truly believe that one of the reasons we've been able to maintain such vast nation for so long under the oldest constitution in the world is the uniquely federated system that we have. We have the strength of union combined with a good degree of minority rights and home rule in the states. By ensuring that the minority has sufficient leverage, we guard against chaos and a total breakdown of our democratic institutions that could ultimately lead to domestic disturbances and civil wars. It promotes stability. But while I agree with the basic principle of ensuring a voice for the minority, I believe that it is too disproportionate, too outsized for us to continue functioning as a reliably democratic republic. In this regard, I feel similar consternation in regards to both the filibuster and the Electoral College.

Sounds like you are arguing for the filibuster and the electoral college though you'd perhaps like to tweak it.  Any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The filibuster in the Senate is an overcorrection that has given the minority too much power. The EC already gives small population states a hugely disproportionate amount of power relative to what the framers envisioned, no way they'd support additional power allocated to the minority via the filibuster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Couple of interesting things here with the poll.  Hunt sticking to principle and voting across the aisle short term, kudos!  Toast, JohnSnow, and Vikas active in the thread but not voting which is a good sign of how Fed this situation is at the moment.

I would love to see a crazy hail mary that links filibuster reform (say dropping the number to 55 and modifying the cloture rules) and voting rights as a manner to improve our guardrails generally, make the filibuster a bit more practical, and take a big whack at Trump and any slow coup plans he may have for 2024.  This hail mary entails getting Manchin/Sinema and a small chunk of anti Trump Repubs to come together.  First, they pass the filibuster reform and then they vote thru a modified version of the voting rights bill.  The entire motivation for this two prong approach is fear of Trump both in 2024 and long term for the country.  It would seem Cheney and Murkowski would be no brainers.  The question is if the likes of Sasse, Romney, Collins and maybe even Ole Mitch could get their heads around something like this.  The progressives would scream a bit at first as they would lose control of the details in the voting rights bill and wouldn't actually remove the filibuster but in the end they would play ball to disrupt Trump and ensure that the voting rights bill makes it across the finish line.

Obviously a pipe dream long shot won't ever happen sort of thing but if it were too happen it would be historical and possibly save the democracy at least for now.  I could see the likes of the Lincoln Project and even former presidents Clinton/Bush/Obama getting behind something like this in a "save the country" style mission.

I disagree for the reason that the filibuster was put in place for situations exactly like the one we're facing right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Procus said:

I disagree for the reason that the filibuster was put in place for situations exactly like the one we're facing right now.

The filibuster would remain in this scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Procus said:

I disagree for the reason that the filibuster was put in place for situations exactly like the one we're facing right now.

The filibuster at least used to require speaking. Much harder to abuse if it requires some Senator to stand on the floor and talk for hours or even days.

Make the filibuster what it was when it was "put in place" (as though it was by some kind of design) and you're much closer to what the framers wanted. Which was a government accountable to voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

The filibuster would remain in this scenario.

I understand, but rewarding attempts at power grabs like the Biden administration s making at the now with filibuster reform is not the proper response.  The Democrats have not earned this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Procus said:

I understand, but rewarding attempts at power grabs like the Biden administration s making at the now with filibuster reform is not the proper response.  The Democrats have not earned this.

You're missing the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Procus said:

I understand, but rewarding attempts at power grabs like the Biden administration s making at the now with filibuster reform is not the proper response.  The Democrats have not earned this.

The Democrats managed a near majority in the senate despite systemic biases against them having it. 

This notion that they didn't "earn" majorities is laughable.

I may not like all they're trying to do, but to act as though getting the House, Senate, and White House is one election isn't earning the right to govern is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You're missing the point.

I don't think so.  I see the "voting rights" bill as a hail mary by the Dems as a permanent restructuring of our Republic to one that eliminates virtually all power of the Republican party - and thus eliminate a major check on the left.  There is no need whatsoever for a "modified" voting rights bill.  Trump is old and while he probably will be a force to be reckoned with in 2024, once he's gone, Trumpism will be gone.  Conservatism - the likes of which practiced by DeSantis will not, and it will never be a force that takes over the Republic.  Periodically, it will occupy the White House, but there will always be a large chunk of the voter rolls that opposes it.

As for the particular bill at issue now, there should be no federal interference in the right to have early voting, imposition of restrictions on mail in voting (which has long been known to be a process very susceptible to fraud) or i.d. requirements (which are in place in most of the free world).

This legislation is designed to tip the balance of power in this country permanently to the Democrats.  Given what we've seen in areas where Democrats have had virtually unchecked control over the past 50-60 years - the big cities - we can see what a disaster that would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Procus said:

I don't think so.  I see the "voting rights" bill as a hail mary by the Dems as a permanent restructuring of our Republic to one that eliminates virtually all power of the Republican party - and thus eliminate a major check on the left.  There is no need whatsoever for a "modified" voting rights bill.  Trump is old and while he probably will be a force to be reckoned with in 2024, once he's gone, Trumpism will be gone.  Conservatism - the likes of which practiced by DeSantis will not, and it will never be a force that takes over the Republic.  Periodically, it will occupy the White House, but there will always be a large chunk of the voter rolls that opposes it.

As for the particular bill at issue now, there should be no federal interference in the right to have early voting, imposition of restrictions on mail in voting (which has long been known to be a process very susceptible to fraud) or i.d. requirements (which are in place in most of the free world).

This legislation is designed to tip the balance of power in this country permanently to the Democrats.  Given what we've seen in areas where Democrats have had virtually unchecked control over the past 50-6- years - the big cities - we can see what a disaster that would be.

Dude, Republicans are putting in place measures to allow for state legislatures - heavily gerrymandered to ensure enduring Republican majorities - are able to override the will of the voters in their state if they "don't vote the right way".

Acting like Democrats are the party trying to "tip the balance of power permanently" is insane.

The proper answer is to provide some baseline measure of support for voting at the federal level while giving states latitude to implement their elections. The voting rights act is not a Constitutional amendment, and there is a long history of SCOTUS being deferential to states when it comes to elections. If things are over the bounds they will be very quickly challenged and we'll have in place laws that balance protection of citizens with those of the "political parties".

What SHOULD be happening is the political parties should be adjusting to what the voting public wants. What YOU are advocating for is protection of the status quo for the political parties over the voting public. 

But please, keep quoting the Federalist papers written by men whom you clearly do not undersatnd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Procus said:

I don't think so.  I see the "voting rights" bill as a hail mary by the Dems as a permanent restructuring of our Republic to one that eliminates virtually all power of the Republican party - and thus eliminate a major check on the left.  There is no need whatsoever for a "modified" voting rights bill.  Trump is old and while he probably will be a force to be reckoned with in 2024, once he's gone, Trumpism will be gone.  Conservatism - the likes of which practiced by DeSantis will not, and it will never be a force that takes over the Republic.  Periodically, it will occupy the White House, but there will always be a large chunk of the voter rolls that opposes it.

As for the particular bill at issue now, there should be no federal interference in the right to have early voting, imposition of restrictions on mail in voting (which has long been known to be a process very susceptible to fraud) or i.d. requirements (which are in place in most of the free world).

This legislation is designed to tip the balance of power in this country permanently to the Democrats.  Given what we've seen in areas where Democrats have had virtually unchecked control over the past 50-60 years - the big cities - we can see what a disaster that would be.

Are you against ensuring the right to vote?  If you are then ok.  If not, then surely there isn't any harm in reaffirming this right.  I'm talking about a semi bi-partisan version (just the small set of Repubs) that puts forth a reasonable set of policy.  For example, I see every reason for an ID requirement to be part of the bill BUT with some measures there go guarantee that those are easy to get and affordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. DeSantis isn’t a Trump guy but an actual conservative?? The guy who thinks he can tell private businesses what they are allowed to do is the conservative??

This place never disappoints. 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Wait. DeSantis isn’t a Trump guy but an actual conservative?? The guy who thinks he can tell private businesses what they are allowed to do is the conservative??

This place never disappoints. 

I particularly liked the part where he seemed to imply that Trumpism somehow will die with Trump. And that Conservatism "as practiced by DeSantis" (which as you say is absurd anyway) is somehow going to be corrected by the voters

Trump was a symptom. He created Trumpism, and Republicans across the nation have bought in to his populist BS. They WANT to turn the Republican party into an authoritarian party that enforces its will on the rest of the nation. 

Procus is groping at some vision of the Republican party that no longer exists. Any and all principled conservatives have either left the party or been banished by those who now control it. Any that internally oppose Trumpism still publicly support it so that they do not get primaried (meaning they lack principles). Acting like that is a situation from which "true conservative" voters will save the party from is delirium. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Are you against ensuring the right to vote?  If you are then ok.  If not, then surely there isn't any harm in reaffirming this right.  I'm talking about a semi bi-partisan version (just the small set of Repubs) that puts forth a reasonable set of policy.  For example, I see every reason for an ID requirement to be part of the bill BUT with some measures there go guarantee that those are easy to get and affordable.

Of course not - and that's the fake narrative being pushed by the Democratic party.  Go show me problems with state legislation that takes away somebody's right to vote.  For all of my childhood and most of my adult life, there was no early voting.    Anybody who wanted to vote voted despite this.  You had to show a voter i.d. card as identification.

If anything, I think there should be a voting bill that prohibits non-citizens from voting.  There is no way that people who are not citizens of this country should have the right to vote for a President, or Senator, or Congressman - and possibly swing the balance of power.  That is a much bigger voting related problem we're facing today.

The other big problem is the institutionalization of mass mail in voting.  Absentee ballots with appropriate safe guards are one thing.  But mailing ballots to all registered voters is unworkable and asking for fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Trump was a symptom. He created Trumpism, and Republicans across the nation have bought in to his populist BS. They WANT to turn the Republican party into an authoritarian party that enforces its will on the rest of the nation. 

Part of that is due to the bitter division between the two sides and isn't specifically an inherent Republican trait.  Reduce that division and many will not want the authoritative aspects.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Procus said:

Of course not - and that's the fake narrative being pushed by the Democratic party.  Go show me problems with state legislation that takes away somebody's right to vote.  For all of my childhood and most of my adult life, there was no early voting.    Anybody who wanted to vote voted despite this.  You had to show a voter i.d. card as identification.

If anything, I think there should be a voting bill that prohibits non-citizens from voting.  There is no way that people who are not citizens of this country should have the right to vote for a President, or Senator, or Congressman - and possibly swing the balance of power.  That is the much bigger voting related problem we're facing today.

Part of it may be perception but that doesn't matter.  Again, even if there isn't an issue it doesn't hurt to reaffirm the basic right to vote and to ensure that states don't infringe on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I particularly liked the part where he seemed to imply that Trumpism somehow will die with Trump. And that Conservatism "as practiced by DeSantis" (which as you say is absurd anyway) is somehow going to be corrected by the voters

Trump was a symptom. He created Trumpism, and Republicans across the nation have bought in to his populist BS. They WANT to turn the Republican party into an authoritarian party that enforces its will on the rest of the nation. 

Procus is groping at some vision of the Republican party that no longer exists. Any and all principled conservatives have either left the party or been banished by those who now control it. Any that internally oppose Trumpism still publicly support it so that they do not get primaried (meaning they lack principles). Acting like that is a situation from which "true conservative" voters will save the party from is delirium. 

I had hoped that after 1/6, reasonable Republicans would re-emerge and take back the party. And for like 48 hours it seemed possible. But then…

There is no major party that represents people who believe in limited government and adherence to Constitutional principles. Guess I will just keep voting for the Libertarian candidate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Sounds like you are arguing for the filibuster and the electoral college though you'd perhaps like to tweak it.  Any suggestions?

 

This is where you really start getting into the weeds, and it's not an easy question to answer. I'm not necessarily "for" the filibuster, but I can tolerate some version of it. In terms of specific correctives that could be undertaken with the EC, I think the simplest answer would be to lift or otherwise re-structure the cap on representation in the House that has been in place since the 1920s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

This is where you really start getting into the weeds, and it's not an easy question to answer. I'm not necessarily "for" the filibuster, but I can tolerate some version of it. In terms of specific correctives that could be undertaken with the EC, I think the simplest answer would be to lift or otherwise re-structure the cap on representation in the House that has been in place since the 1920s.

Right, so you're essentially taking a position that you support both concepts but want reform.  I'm perfectly happy to support that approach.  Devil is in the details of course but I'm with ya there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I had hoped that after 1/6, reasonable Republicans would re-emerge and take back the party. And for like 48 hours it seemed possible. But then…

Totally agree.  However, there will absolutely be another moment of opportunity should Trump go away.  People can tend to get caught up in things that they might not even really want to be caught up in and find a hard time getting out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Part of it may be perception but that doesn't matter.  Again, even if there isn't an issue it doesn't hurt to reaffirm the basic right to vote and to ensure that states don't infringe on that.

The right to vote is already enshrined in the 14th amendment and the Constitution as well as existing federal legislation.  Any state infringement on that right can be remedied in federal court without additional legislation.  We desperately need federal legislation to stop what is going on in NYC where non-citizens can vote and in California where ballots are mailed to all registered voters.  These are the real problems going on today and need to be addressed in federal legislation - legislation that will not be enacted with the current makeup of Congress and with Biden in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Part of it may be perception but that doesn't matter.  Again, even if there isn't an issue it doesn't hurt to reaffirm the basic right to vote and to ensure that states don't infringe on that.

There's been a concerted effort to eliminate polling stations since the 2013 SC verdict. In Georgia for example, the four metro areas have significantly more voters per polling station than rural areas (and to be sure rural areas have also been seeing their polling stations disappear, with one county wanting to eliminate all but ONE.)

It's not just red states. But blue states that eliminated polling centers either permanently or temporarily due to Covid offset those closures with expansion of mail-in voting.

Tell me how this all doesn't track with the criticism of a Republican party that is using its authority in elected roles to introduce as much friction into the process as possible to frustrate voters specifically in blue areas?

You don't have to convince me the Dems would do the same. But it doesn't make it defensible regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

They WANT to turn the Republican party into an authoritarian party that enforces its will on the rest of the nation.

That's rich.  The party that locks innocent people down in their homes and restricts freedom of movement is NOT the authoritarian party.  You should try reading some of the drivel you write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...