If the R’s get rid of the filibuster now they can advance their bills to face an override proof veto. Or they could sit down and negotiate
6 Likes
Exactly. But the crazy wing is convinced that they’ll control all three branches of government by next year. God help us if they do, but it’s certainly a long shot.
1 Like
Ding ding ding. McConnell probably wants to nuke the filibuster about as badly as he’d like to spend the week on a deserted island with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. He has absolutely no desire to do so. He stands to gain nothing and lose everything. Being able to bring up sure-to-fail legislation provides him and his caucus cover because he can say he brought a piece of stupid, dangerous legislation to the floor for a vote, and when it fails he can blame the Democrats for filibustering. He doesn’t want to be in the position of sending to Obama some TP created, idiotic bill that Obama will smartly make a big show of vetoing on the 6 o’clock news, legislation that Democrats in every Senate campaign would then use to rightfully turn out Democratic voters to vote against his already endangered majority. He needs the filibuster far more than Democrats probably even want it, and he’s certainly smart enough to know it.
22 Likes
“then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV)”
???
3 Likes
Time for the Rethugs to send another letter to Iran so some third-rate imam can explain to them how our system of government actually works.
4 Likes
Your odd argument about population vs. number of Senators is troubling, because that is PRECISELY how the Senate was designed. It was created so as to give more power to the notion of States Rights, which however antiquated people may find it today, is one of the founding principles of our country. That IS the Constitution.
It’s not as if no one noticed this before you.
4 Likes
Nominations were blocked in a way shown by various parties to be excessive and the Democrats chose to end filibusters for presidential nominations under the USSC, which wasn’t subject to any sort of filibuster anyway since the 1960s, Some reformist Democrats were open to doing more including toning down the breadth of filibusters of normal legislation and they had some good ideas. Going further to simply end the filibuster is arguably good public policy too though the Senate has changed hands enough times in recent years and Tea Party types and others like the power filibusters have even when members of their own party are willing to let things through that I doubt Republicans really want to end it totally.
Still won’t be able to override a POTUS veto. Tough luck, Yertle.
6 Likes
We should merge some small states… would save money.
having two Dakotas seems a bit redundant
6 Likes
Pretty impressive, Republicans. A small group of around 40 Congressmen are now forcing the SENATE to consider changing the rules. Just when you think the GOP can’t get any more twisted, they contort themselves even further.
I’ve been saying for years now, there’s no such thing as a moderate Republican (I was saying this well before the Tea Party). When you vote Republican, be aware that you are voting for the most extreme of the right wing, because they call the shots. I wasn’t aware, however, that you had to consider members of the House when voting for the Senate. That’s a new one for sure.
11 Likes
The population range was much less back in 1787 today where California and Montana both have two senators.
You also can have state rights and still have an equally apportioned Senate or at least one somewhat less unevenly apportioned by population. Also, the Constitution has been changed since then, including via the 17A.
3 Likes
This is yet another example of the stupid, useless stunts the GOP leadership uses to pacify the crazies. If he were to nix the filibuster it would only result in getting vulnerable members of his caucus in trouble when they’re forced to vote yea or nay on a bill potential primary opponents love or hate. There would be nowhere for folks like Ayotte and Kirk to hide. Vote against a crazy caucus backed bill and risk losing the primary, vote for the crazy caucus bill and risk losing the general election. Their only sanctuary is being able to throw up their hands and say, “I tried, but it was filibustered”.
9 Likes
Once again, we need to be reminded that Social Security and Medicare benefits are NOT entitlements. They are benefits paid for by beneficiaries through their payroll tax deductions, and in the case of Medicare Part B, premiums paid directly to the Social Security Administration. Those benefits have been earned.
7 Likes
Absolutely agree.
I’d love to see the Senate get back to its more traditional procedures than the current dysfunction, but if McConnell really wanted to get rid of the filibuster, he’d have done it last January. The GOP has no interest in governing and the Dem filibuster threat gives them a massive fig leaf. To be honest, I’d like the Dems to just let whatever piece of crap legislation the Reps propose come up for a vote and let the veto-a-rama begin. That would drive home the message that folks have to work together and compromise to do the people’s business.
6 Likes
Yes, do we really need a Dakota Johnson AND a Dakota Fanning?
1 Like
A turtle out of its shell, I would think.
I thought about that.
Democrats are in a position such that hand-wringing is the LAST thing they should be thinking about.
Right-wing politicians love to use the plain meaning of the word to denigrate the programs, but, in context, it is basically shorthand for benefits provided to all who are eligible for the particular program.
5 Likes
Not so much. We had already tried a weak central gov’t and strong states rights with the Articles of Confederation ratified in 1781, and in effect until 1789.
It failed. The country was unable to pay its debts and it lacked the power to compel the states to pay their share.
So we wrote a Constitution with a much stronger central government that essentially superseded states rights - a position further enhanced in 1810 by Fletcher v. Peck, when the US Supreme Court first overruled a state statute as being unconstitutional.
Having two Senators per state wasn’t an assertion of the founding father’s desire to preserve State’s Rights. It was a political concession to overcome the fears of smaller states that their concerns would be overridden and ignored in favor of larger states with more representatives, and to thereby convince them to ratify the new US Constitution.
To the extent State’s Rights had anything to do with the current Constitution, the main concern was to weaken State’s Rights as much as possible, while throwing in the vague Tenth Amendment - which was opposed by James Madison (and largely toothless anyway, due to the Necessary and Proper Clause) - and also throwing in a few federal power concessions, like two Senators per state and the appalling Three-Fifths Compromise, in order to court the signatories of less populous states.
3 Likes