For all the talk about how Trump is going to destroy our Democracy, we've now heard in the debates that the Progressives want to stack the SCOTUS.  And eliminate the filibuster in the Senate.

Actually, I thought Pete's idea for 15 justices was very interesting.  But if you eliminate the filibuster, then every time the Senate flips the majority party is going to get even and then ram thru it's own reckless agenda.

I hope someone is smart enough to codify the filibuster into law.  Except none of these politicians appear capable of thinking beyond their own re-election.

posted by gut

For all the talk about how Trump is going to destroy our Democracy, we've now heard in the debates that the Progressives want to stack the SCOTUS.  And eliminate the filibuster in the Senate.

Actually, I thought Pete's idea for 15 justices was very interesting.  But if you eliminate the filibuster, then every time the Senate flips the majority party is going to get even and then ram thru it's own reckless agenda.

I hope someone is smart enough to codify the filibuster into law.  Except none of these politicians appear capable of thinking beyond their own re-election.

I think the idea is that they view the filibuster as a waste of time that could be better spent "getting things done."

Of course, this assumes that the things they'd be getting done are good things.  Not feeling all that confident in that, so I kind of like the filibuster, even if only for that reason.

It's also entertaining, though.  Maybe not a reason to keep something, but a reason I'd want to, perhaps.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Through Executive Action which can easily be overturned by a new admin. 

Outside the tax bill, what other major item has he gotten through Congress? 

I'll give Trump the Supreme Court and lower court judges. 

You mean the do-nothing congress full of radical resistors?

posted by O-Trap

I think the idea is that they view the filibuster as a waste of time that could be better spent "getting things done."

Purely partisan legislation is rarely good.  The instability it would bring would be bad for business/economy.  Just imagine every time the Senate flips that guns become illegal or legal.  Or that your healthcare gets fucked with. 

It really is one of the most reckless ideas I've heard proposed in all the years I've been voting.  This only comes from an idealogue who has deluded themself into thinking they have all the answers....and, apparently, in their world the other party will never have control and erase your "perfect" solution.

I think the core of the idea is "if we pass an entitlement, history shows it can't be taken away".  Except you're forgetting that very filibuster has played a role in protecting those entitlements.  Obamacare does not survive if the Repubs had nuked the filibuster.  As Mitch McConnell famously told Harry Reid - "careful what you wish for".

posted by QuakerOats

You mean the do-nothing congress full of radical resistors?

You kidding me?  I'd vote 100% in favor of a "do-nothing [C]ongress."  It's better than when they do something.

posted by O-Trap

You kidding me?  I'd vote 100% in favor of a "do-nothing [C]ongress."  It's better than when they do something.

Yes, I'm a big fan of The Gridlock

If they're not actively rolling back the State, give me a do-nothing Congress every single time.

posted by O-Trap

You kidding me?  I'd vote 100% in favor of a "do-nothing [C]ongress."  It's better than when they do something.

this

posted by gut

Purely partisan legislation is rarely good.  The instability it would bring would be bad for business/economy.  Just imagine every time the Senate flips that guns become illegal or legal.  Or that your healthcare gets fucked with. 

It really is one of the most reckless ideas I've heard proposed in all the years I've been voting.  This only comes from an idealogue who has deluded themself into thinking they have all the answers....and, apparently, in their world the other party will never have control and erase your "perfect" solution.

I think the core of the idea is "if we pass an entitlement, history shows it can't be taken away".  Except you're forgetting that very filibuster has played a role in protecting those entitlements.  Obamacare does not survive if the Repubs had nuked the filibuster.  As Mitch McConnell famously told Harry Reid - "careful what you wish for".

Completely agree.

Truthfully, I just HAVE to believe that they don't actually want this and know it's a bad idea.  Generally speaking, I tend to trust a given person to know more about their profession than someone who isn't in that space, and I have to believe that the average career politician (read: Biden, Warren, Sanders) knows that nixing the filibuster would be a terrible idea.

I had the same thought when Democrats were defending Obama's liberal (the non-political use of that term) use of the EO.  Do you honestly think there's never going to be anyone in that position who you'd rather NOT have that ability?
 

posted by justincredible

If they're not actively rolling back the State, give me a do-nothing Congress every single time.

Aye.

And let's be honest: They're never actively rolling back the state.

posted by O-Trap

Aye.

And let's be honest: They're never actively rolling back the state.

posted by O-Trap

... and I have to believe that the average career politician (read: Biden, Warren, Sanders) knows that nixing the filibuster would be a terrible idea.

I would like to agree, but Harry Reid did exactly that with judicial nominations.  Then Mitch McConnell one-upped him to eliminate it for SCOTUS nominations, which allowed the Repubs to steal a SCOTUS seat.

So there's already precedent for what a disaster eliminating the filibuster would be.  Not to mention, ACA was passed with the budget reconciliation trick, and by any objective measure that program is a mess and achieved very few of its goals.

I'll say again: Orange Man Bad, but Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the ones who have done real damage to our democracy.

posted by O-Trap

You kidding me?  I'd vote 100% in favor of a "do-nothing [C]ongress."  It's better than when they do something.

Not arguing that; just pointing out to Ptown that a few positive things could have been achieved had the resistors not taken over the democrat party --- such as IMMIGRATION REFORM, for starters.

posted by QuakerOats

 

Not arguing that; just pointing out to Ptown that a few positive things could have been achieved had the resistors not taken over the democrat party --- such as IMMIGRATION REFORM, for starters.

Meh.  It's not like the kind of immigration reform that you'd like to see would have been the result.  It either would have resulted in increased spending (more taxes and bigger government) or a more relaxed immigration policy (which you seem to oppose).  Hell, it's Congress we're talking about.  They'd likely find a way to make the policy less strict AND more expensive.

Yikes...

https://news.yahoo.com/seattle-socialism-laboratory-not-pretty-113053996.html

posted by O-Trap

You kidding me?  I'd vote 100% in favor of a "do-nothing [C]ongress."  It's better than when they do something.

So I am not the only one that most POTUS elections votes one way for POTUS and the opposite party for the HoR and Senate hoping for gridlock?

posted by jmog

So I am not the only one that most POTUS elections votes one way for POTUS and the opposite party for the HoR and Senate hoping for gridlock?

For the most part, I just prefer that the houses are split, and not by narrow margins.  Limits the influence of the Executive branch altogether, since he or she can't sign what hasn't reached his or her desk.

Still makes way for EOs, but I don't know that I trust any one person to wield that well, short of national holidays and putting flags at half staff.

posted by jmog

So I am not the only one that most POTUS elections votes one way for POTUS and the opposite party for the HoR and Senate hoping for gridlock?

I cannot deny that I have done this as well. Personally, I'm cool with the status quo, so I don't care about one side's half-baked attempts to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN or the other side's desire to completely overhaul our system entirely because this person committed a gun crime and that one felt marginalized due to various reasons. So, I'd prefer gridlock so everyone can just shout at each other and nothing gets done, as opposed to a bunch of rich idiots using politics as a way to place themselves on a pedestal above us all making actual decisions that might impact my life. 

posted by Heretic

So, I'd prefer gridlock so everyone can just shout at each other and nothing gets done, as opposed to a bunch of rich idiots using politics as a way to place themselves on a pedestal above us all making actual decisions that might impact my life. 

LOL Baltimore's crooked ass ex-Mayor got sentenced to 3 years in prison for making a hospital who's board she sat on buy her shitty children's book (amongst other transgressions). Funny how all the same cities seem to be tied to corruption. 

posted by BR1986FB

Yikes...

https://news.yahoo.com/seattle-socialism-laboratory-not-pretty-113053996.html

Hard to believe, truly.

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Hard to believe, truly.

I can't fathom how people think this is truly the best way to live. I know "but, but, but...NORWAY !!!!"

So was I the only one watching the debate who felt like it was old school WWF with the trash talk and personal attacks?

posted by gut

So was I the only one watching the debate who felt like it was old school WWF with the trash talk and personal attacks?

I've stopped watching them for this cycle until the general election.

Cuomo using prison labor to make hand sanitizer is capitalisms fault. Because reasons.

https://twitter.com/socialistdogmom/status/1237037851356905475