Kyrsten Sinema, the Dems' Mitt Romney

[Commando]

If the GOP flips the Senate, just watch, McConnell will change the rules under the justification that the Dems tried to change them in 2020 and thats good enough. McConnell already has a history of arguing vigorously for a norm only to abandon it as soon as it's to his political advantage. That's why there isn't a Justice Garland and there is a justice who was rammed through even after the election in which the sitting president lost.

Exactly. If you need it printed in black and white which game the opposition is playing, look no further than the SCOTUS nominees. It was oh-so important to wait until after the election to replace Scalia so that 'the American people could have a voice in choosing the next Justice,' but even more important to punch through ACB after Trump already lost because of reasons. F*k the entire GOP. Democrats need to turn the crank and instead they're acting like Republicans aren't total shitbags.

[USUC]

It's really a prediction, not so much an argument. And for the record, Im a Libertarian. However you're right that Trumpism has really turned me away from the Republicans. But I don't like the dems much either.

My justification was based on my thought around what the Constitution ntended.. The prediction is based on the thought that politicians don't care about much more than being in power.

Although I believe libertarianism is the most just political philosophy, I think history and modern culture prevent it from being implemented in a useful way.

In practice, I'm a federalsit (as in a beleiver in federalism). The only way forward out of this political division is for states to exercise more power over their constituents and have more leeway in buulding the life they want. Enough of this back and forth of forcing red state ideals on blue states and vice versa. I am an advocate for the filibuster because it is the single best way to to retain federalism. If you can't get it done without 60 votes, then it's not worth forcing it on the country. To the point I made earlier, legislation can happen when moderation returns. It's a battle of extreme ideas that the public doesn't want put upon them. When the politicians and the voting public decide they want to get something done, then they will moderate. I think the filibuster is working exactly how it was intended and it's for the best of the country.

[USUC]

Exactly. If you need it printed in black and white which game the opposition is playing, look no further than the SCOTUS nominees. It was oh-so important to wait until after the election to replace Scalia so that 'the American people could have a voice in choosing the next Justice,' but even more important to punch through ACB after Trump already lost because of reasons. F*k the entire GOP. Democrats need to turn the crank and instead they're acting like Republicans aren't total shitbags.

Since dehumanizing the opposition was such a healthy tactic for MAGA, why not do it as well, right?

[falafel]

So when will the DREAM Act finally pass? Never? I know only 90% of Americans are in favor of it, so it's got quite a steep hill to climb...

There's no way 90% of Americans could even articulate what the DREAM Act is.

[LVAllen]

I think the filibuster is working exactly how it was intended and it's for the best of the country.

As a rule change that was caused by an assumption that debate would end normally? And then wasn't used on a regular basis until it was time for civil rights laws?

Yeah, I'm going to need some evidence that the 1806 rule change that gave rise to filibusters was ever "intended" to do anything. Before then, motions to cut off debate carried with a simple majority.

[Commando]

Since dehumanizing the opposition was such a healthy tactic for MAGA, why not do it as well, right?

Just got back from a ski trip with my family, who are pretty much all MAGA now. What a mistake. I'm not sure they are human anymore, tbh.

[Commando]

There's no way 90% of Americans could even articulate what the DREAM Act is.

Those are the numbers. If you favor a path to citizenship for undocumented folks brought here under the age of 15, you are in favor of the DREAM Act. Not so hard to grasp.

[Pelado]

Those are the numbers. If you favor a path to citizenship for undocumented folks brought here under the age of 15, you are in favor of the DREAM Act. Not so hard to grasp.

Under 8, sure. But those who are past the age of accountability should have known better.

[falafel]

Those are the numbers. If you favor a path to citizenship for undocumented folks brought here under the age of 15, you are in favor of the DREAM Act. Not so hard to grasp.

No one said it was hard to grasp. I just don’t believe that 90% of Americans even know what it is, let alone have a favorable opinion of it.

[UVACoug]

It's interesting that you bring up abortion. I think that is the one topic that could galvanize the dems in future elections should Roe v Wade be overturned. The republicans would take a serious risk banning all or most abortions considering the nation as a whole support abortion about 60-40.
I'm against getting rid of the filibuster but at least election reform is something that the public in general supports.

Disagree. There are not enough Democrats that are passionate about the issue to make it a winning campaign issue. It's true that a majority of Americans think it should be available, but polls consistently show that, among those that are in favor of keeping it legal, it isn't as high of a priority as an issue as it is for those on the right that want it banned. That has, so far, held true even after the Texas law was allowed to go into effect. Terry McAuliffe made abortion one of his top campaign issues in the last gubernatorial election in Virginia, which took place after the Texas law went into effect. Exit polls show, however, that even among Democrats it didn't move the needle that much. And of those that said that abortion was the most important issue, more voted for Youngkin than McAuliffe.

[UVACoug]

we’ll get to how serious the gop is about restraint when california bans guns with the same enforcement mechanism as the tx law.

Newsome has already pledged to do that.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/12/10634...s-abortion-law

It won't be anything but a political stunt though. If the California law is passed, it (like the Texas law) will only be temporary. People exaggerate what the Supreme Court did. The only thing they said is that opponents of the Texas law could not bring a pre-enforcement action to enjoin it from going into effect. Unless the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade in a few months (which is probably a likelihood at this point), the Texas law will eventually get struck down. Likely by a Texas court. It will just take some time. The same is true of the proposed California law.

[UVACoug]

Uh... to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in. The filibuster is nothing more than voting rules the senate agrees to abide by. Now it's hard to get anything done because of the way Mitch McConnell has normalized just blocking every single thing the other side wants to do, the way he bragged about doing to Obama. So who cares about the super-majority when the representatives for a minor part of the populace is quite disproportionately calling all the shots?


And the filibuster wasn't such a sacred, long-standing norm when it came to SCOTUS confirmation, was it? I for one would like some bills to pass, even if they're not popular with people like mealy-mouthed Kyrsten Sinema...

That's been going on by both sides for years. Harry Reid did the same thing before McConnell was even leader.

Getting rid of the filibuster for nominations has not been a good thing. Why would we want to repeat that mistake?

[UVACoug]

As a rule change that was caused by an assumption that debate would end normally? And then wasn't used on a regular basis until it was time for civil rights laws?

Yeah, I'm going to need some evidence that the 1806 rule change that gave rise to filibusters was ever "intended" to do anything. Before then, motions to cut off debate carried with a simple majority.

The fact that it was adopted is proof enough that it was intended to do something. Why would the Senate have eliminated the ability to end debate by a simple majority? This idea that the filibuster was an "accident" makes no sense. The consequence of eliminating the ability to end debate should have been obvious to anyone. If it wasn't to allow a filibuster, why was the rule changed at all?

The truth is that the 1806 rule change didn't really do anything to the ability to filibuster at all. The rule at issue has always been present in the House, and yet ... the filibuster was present in the House for nearly a century before the House decided to change the meaning of the PQ motion to make it end debate. In fact, prior to the 20th century, there were quite a few filibusters in the House (a lot more than occurred in the Senate).

The "accidental filibuster" story was invented in 2010 by Democrats that were frustrated over the use of the filibuster to delay and water down Obama care. I challenge anyone to find an article the predates 2010 that advocates this fictional recount of history.

For a good overview of the actual history of the filibuster, here is an interesting blog post from a political science professor that specializes in studying the filibuster:

https://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/p...ate-filibuster

As the author says, the filibuster has become an institution of the Senate because the Senate has wanted it to be an institution of the Senate for as long as it has been around. The Senate has always had the ability to end filibusters. They have deliberately chosen not to. There's nothing "accidental" about that.

[Commando]

No one said it was hard to grasp. I just don’t believe that 90% of Americans even know what it is, let alone have a favorable opinion of it.

I don't know if Gallup asked every single American, but scientific polls based on sampling show that about 90% are in favor of the dream act. Run along, now...

[Commando]

Under 8, sure. But those who are past the age of accountability should have known better.

Before I blow your doors off unnecessarily, let me know-- is this an attempt at humor?