 
     |
| Filibuster, is it racist or not? (Page 2/4) |
|
blackrams
|
MAR 27, 05:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
I have long held that the filibuster should be eliminated and replaced by a rule that ALL new legislation require a two thirds majority. There are far to many laws as it is and so many of them are opposed by half of the country.
In short, no law should be passed without widespread, bipartisan support.
|
|
I could easily agree with that 2/3rd rule. Neither party has all the right answers.
Rams
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
MAR 27, 09:59 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sourmash:
What do you think is "racism"? |
|
Racism has been effectively redefined. What is now called racism is really bigotry. The old version of racism has been redefined as White Supremacy. Why? Because only whites can be racists. It’s damn effective at silencing any discussion about anything one person doesn’t like. Just call the other person a racist, you win.
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
MAR 28, 07:52 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by williegoat:
... should be eliminated and replaced by a rule that ALL new legislation require a two thirds majority. There are far to many laws as it is and so many of them are opposed by half of the country.
In short, no law should be passed without widespread, bipartisan support.
|
|
Although I could get behind that, ... "replaced by a rule that ALL new legislation require a two thirds majority" ?
In this case, a rule is being proposed to replace another rule. That would also have to be included with a requirement of a two thirds majority. I also propose that any new rule go into effect in the next Senate term, where they might think twice, three times.
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
MAR 28, 08:05 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
Racism has been effectively redefined. What is now called racism is really bigotry. The old version of racism has been redefined as White Supremacy. Why? Because only whites can be racists. It’s damn effective at silencing any discussion about anything one person doesn’t like. Just call the other person a racist, you win. |
|
Even speech that isn't bigoted is falsely called racist. Quoting fbi violent crime stats by racial breakdown, for instance. Just quoting them is raciat.
Similarly, racially insensitive speech is falsely called racism.[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 03-28-2021).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 28, 03:38 PM
|
|
The U.S. Constitution was created after the Articles of Confederation foundered on the "sand bar" of the supermajority requirement to get anything done.
"The filibuster: The accidental norm that should not be"
Craig Holman and Lisa Gilbert for The Palm Beach (FL) Post; March 28, 2021.
https://www.palmbeachpost.c...continue/7001544002/
Read-o-Meter almost 4 minutes.
"Hamilton's nightmare"
| quote | | There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that provides for the filibuster. In fact, it is anathema to what the Founders envisioned for the legislative process. Noting the standstill of the legislative process under the super-majority vote requirements of the Articles of Confederation, the Founders wrote a new Constitution fundamentally based on majority rule. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22: “If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority ... (the government’s) situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.” |
|
If it were up to me (  ) I would go "nuclear." Eliminate the "three-fifths" or (currently) 60 votes requirement for Cloture. I wouldn't go partway by reinstating the performative art of the "talking" filibuster.
Let the party that has the majority in the Senate pass legislation, even if it's just the Vice President's tie-breaking vote as it stands today.
The "filibuster"--which is a loose term for what is actually the 60-vote supermajority that is required for Cloture--is a "cure that's worse than the disease."
This gives me a chance to reference a Pennock's O/T topic that I created earlier this year:
"'The Senate has become a Dadaist nightmare.' How to make the Senate 'Great Again.'"
http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/126162.html
I started that with an op-ed in the New York Times from that "Odious Little Leftist Troll"--oh wait, isn't that one of my own awards from the King of Scotland..?--nevertheless, Ezra Klein.
The work-around that the majority party in the Senate has often used to overcome the "filibuster" is Budget Reconciliation. That's like using a flat-head screwdriver on a Phillips head fastener. It creates more damage than it prevents.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-28-2021).]
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
MAR 28, 04:21 PM
|
|
It's better that Congress doesn't do anything. Bad things happen to the people when they do things.
I mean, c'mon, AOC has been the main Dem driving force and doesn't even know the branches of government.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAR 28, 04:25 PM
|
|
|
The filibuster, in and of itself, is the equivalent of a child who screams and stomps his feet until every adult in the room drops what they are doing to grant the child his wish. However, without it we would be in a situation where if rinselberg and blackrams disagree, rinselberg always wins because one feeble old godfather chose a Brahmin bimbo from Berkeley to be your boss.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAR 28, 04:34 PM
|
|
Right now, Harris runs the Senate, Pelosi runs the House and Biden runs from the light like a cockroach. DC is on the Potomac, but the country is run from the Bay.
This is their utopia:
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-28-2021).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAR 28, 05:02 PM
|
|
I look to Article Three--the Judicial Branch--as the main bulwark against Benjamin Franklin's warning that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch."
There's also the architecture of the Senate. Two Senators from every state. California's population of about 40 million, represented by two U.S. Senators. Wyoming's population of about 600 thousand, represented by two U.S. Senators. Some have speculated that the Founding Fathers never imagined that much disparity in population between individual states. Of course, that could be an argument for creating more states by dividing up California, but I'm not about to go there.
And there's Joe Manchin--although I don't think his name was written into the Constitution. That's actually just a derivative of the architecture of the Senate.
Was there actually a lot of "buzz" about the filibuster--which is more accurately the supermajority requirement for Cloture--during Trump's Presidency? This much "buzz"..? I don't remember that in such clarity.
I say let the Democrats do their "worst" (if that's your expectation) and then look to how the people vote after they've lived with it for awhile. Look to elections as the remedy.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-28-2021).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
MAR 28, 05:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Look to elections as the remedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|