The filibuster made some sense in an era of bipartisan cooperation where at least some lawmakers could be relied on to do the sensible thing even in the face of party opposition.
Now, party discipline is so strong except for two or three unicorns that I say let it run as a Parliament. If the Dems want to codify Roe now and the Republicans want to un-codify it when they get back into power, I say let them both do it. Let BOTH sides take responsibility for all their positions by making their records clear before the voters and then let the voters decide which agenda to vote in every few years.
If anything, having all that power might have a moderating effect. The Dems haven't packed the Court or added PR and DC as states even though they have the power to do so because of the principle of mutually assured destruction. They know that these would destroy the institutions. They might be able to blame Manchin as a convenient scapegoat, but I don't think even Chuck Schumer wants to start down the path to 117 Justices and 189 states.
If that makes politics so dangerous and fragile that the politicians think more carefully before acting rashly and are forced to try to build consensus, all the better.
Politics is a contact sport. Anachronistic parlor game niceties should be discarded.
13 May 22
@sh76 saidNot debating your general contention, but the recent vote to codify Roe Versus Wade was not filibustered. Also, it wasn't really a bill to codify RvW, but rather something that would have gone much further.
The filibuster made some sense in an era of bipartisan cooperation where at least some lawmakers could be relied on to do the sensible thing even in the face of party opposition.
Now, party discipline is so strong except for two or three unicorns that I say let it run as a Parliament. If the Dems want to codify Roe now and the Republicans want to un-codify it when they get ba ...[text shortened]... the better.
Politics is a contact sport. Anachronistic parlor game niceties should be discarded.
@techsouth saidAgreed on both points. I was just using that as a hypothetical.
Not debating your general contention, but the recent vote to codify Roe Versus Wade was not filibustered. Also, it wasn't really a bill to codify RvW, but rather something that would have gone much further.
13 May 22
@sleepyguy saidAOC is not the median Senate voter. Joe Manchin is. And if it came to be that Joe Manchin weren't, the median Senate voter would still ever be more comparable to Joe Manchin than to AOC.
Yeah right. I'm sure AOC agrees.
No, dude.
13 May 22
@sh76 saidAOC is not the median Senate voter, YET. Manchin is the last man standing and AOC is the future.
AOC is not the median Senate voter. Joe Manchin is. And if it came to be that Joe Manchin weren't, the median Senate voter would still ever be more comparable to Joe Manchin than to AOC.
13 May 22
@sh76 saidYour having a laugh aren’t you, Manchin might have been median before the tea party took over the Republican Party and found Trumpism.
AOC is not the median Senate voter. Joe Manchin is. And if it came to be that Joe Manchin weren't, the median Senate voter would still ever be more comparable to Joe Manchin than to AOC.
AOC would be a dream compared to the right wing dystopian nightmare that would erupt from a republican congress and potus.
13 May 22
@kevcvs57 saidDo you know what the phrase "median Senate voter" means?
Your having a laugh aren’t you, Manchin might have been median before the tea party took over the Republican Party and found Trumpism.
AOC would be a dream compared to the right wing dystopian nightmare that would erupt from a republican congress and potus.
Apparently not.
13 May 22
@sleepyguy saidThat's democracy. If the country elects all left wing radicals, then so be it. We can either move or fight to win elections in the future. If the people want AOC's political agenda, then stupid though it may be, that's what the people voted for.
AOC is not the median Senate voter, YET. Manchin is the last man standing and AOC is the future.
13 May 22
@sh76 saidYes yes I do.
Do you know what the phrase "median Senate voter" means?
Apparently not.
Your claiming that an anti abortionist right wing democrat is median in his voting habits I’m claiming your wrong or if your right the US is so far to the right it needs a bloodbath revolution to sort itself out and it certainly does not need to give a legislature where manchin is the middle of the road guy anymore power than it already has. Better to leave it hobbled.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@kevcvs57 saidno, no you dont
Yes yes I do.
Your claiming that an anti abortionist right wing democrat is median in his voting habits I’m claiming your wrong or if your right the US is so far to the right it needs a bloodbath revolution to sort itself out and it certainly does not need to give a legislature where manchin is the middle of the road guy anymore power than it already has. Better to leave it hobbled.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
13 May 22
@sh76 saiddems dont have the power to make washington dc a state
The filibuster made some sense in an era of bipartisan cooperation where at least some lawmakers could be relied on to do the sensible thing even in the face of party opposition.
Now, party discipline is so strong except for two or three unicorns that I say let it run as a Parliament. If the Dems want to codify Roe now and the Republicans want to un-codify it when they get ba ...[text shortened]... the better.
Politics is a contact sport. Anachronistic parlor game niceties should be discarded.
13 May 22
@mott-the-hoople saidYes I do it’s so easy to Google the meaning of ‘median’ I wouldn’t be surprised if it had the same root as medium you retard.
no, no you dont
What your favourite right wing legal eagle is saying is that his median voter is a guy who does not believe in a woman’s right to choose, if that’s the case then the US is so far to the right Europe is going to be flooded with liberal refugees.
That’s before we get the problem of how you can have a parliamentary democracy in a system where a constituency of 5 million voters can fill the same number of seats in the parliament as a state of 50 million voters. You right wing Americans appear to be refining terms like left and right not to mention democracy.
13 May 22
@sh76 saidVigorous honest debate is completely missing in modern politics. Any change that brings that back would be welcome.
The filibuster made some sense in an era of bipartisan cooperation where at least some lawmakers could be relied on to do the sensible thing even in the face of party opposition.
Now, party discipline is so strong except for two or three unicorns that I say let it run as a Parliament. If the Dems want to codify Roe now and the Republicans want to un-codify it when they get ba ...[text shortened]... the better.
Politics is a contact sport. Anachronistic parlor game niceties should be discarded.
13 May 22
@wildgrass saidGetting rid of the filibuster isn’t going to foster honest debate your whole congressional system needs ripped up and reconstituted into an actual democracy.
Vigorous honest debate is completely missing in modern politics. Any change that brings that back would be welcome.
The senate is the least democratic part of the US system it needs to go completely or be reduced to a rubber stamping and debating chamber rather than a partisan road block or worse yet an undemocratic steamroller.