Jump to content
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: A Sinematic view on voting rights and the filibuster

Recommended Posts

Sounds like a grand old argument as to why the Constitution should be ripped to shreds. 

Seriously, we're debating specifics of a 250 year old document written by men, some of whom, raped their slaves when they were horny and bored.

Time for a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is illogical to require unanimous consent to change equal representation in the Senate but to allow the hightened requirements to amend that same provision to be amended through the normal process.

Yep, it is.  So is, btw, Article VII, which requires only 9 out of 13 states to ratify in order for the constitution to take effect when abolishing the Articles required unanimity.  The constitution is fundamentally contradictory.  Congrats, you've passed AP American History.  That still doesn't mean we can't amend the constitution in a way that nullifies the original text of the constitution once again - as we've done numerous times before.  Your argument here is either sophomoric or deliberately contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yep, it is.  So is, btw, Article VII, which requires only 9 out of 13 states to ratify in order for the constitution to take effect when abolishing the Articles required unanimity.  The constitution is fundamentally contradictory.  Congrats, you've passed AP American History.  That still doesn't mean we can't amend the constitution in a way that nullifies the original text of the constitution once again - as we've done numerous times before.  Your argument here is either sophomoric or deliberately contrary.

I appreciate your point and disagree.

I’m out and about.  There are Trump flag trucks everywhere.

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m out and about.  There are Trump flag trucks everywhere.

Well, then be careful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DMC said:

I never said an amendment was in any way realistic.  Of course it's not.  And even if it was, still certainly the chance SCOTUS would overturn it.  But they'd be doing so for political reasons, not constitutional reasons.  My point is this notion that unanimity is required - rather than simply an amendment that, ya know, nullifies that in its first clause - is based on bullshit.  By that rationale the Senate should still be chosen by state legislatures.

I don't think giving the president a couple whacks at it that are gonna be voted down only to revert to executive decree is the answer either, no.  Advise and consent is important.  It's royally fucked right now, but that's because of polarization, not because of the rules. 

And you think this polarization is going to get better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

And you think this polarization is going to get better?

Absolutely not!  I'm just saying changing the rules, in the way being discussed, isn't gonna change shit.  Or, if it is - like executive decree - it's in a way I'm not down with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nothing is going to change the polarization in this country. Liberals aren't perfect, but I have long said a total calamity would shock Republicans and bring them to their senses. Well, since then, we've had a pandemic and an attempted coup and they're still not taking the pandemic seriously and are on the side of those who wanted the coup to take place.

Where we go from here is only downward. Happy 4th everyone. 

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, instead of thinking about this proposed "rule" in the Merrick Garland case, think about Harriet Miers.  Now, was her nomination torpedoed predominately because rightwingers weren't sure if she was Federalist Society enough?  Absolutely.  (And they were probably right, btw.)  But, still, there was widespread concern across the political spectrum on whether she was truly qualified for the Supreme Court.  And this became obvious before she ever got to hearings. 

So under these new rules, what's Dubya supposed to do?  You could I guess have hearings, but it's obvious she's gonna need to be replaced as a nominee eventually.  Does she count as one of the "vetos" if the Judiciary Committee doesn't get to a hearing - which it didn't? 

If not, what's to prevent the opposition majority party from employing such a delay tactic with the next nominees to avoid an eventual vote anyway?  Alternatively, if so, then why are we voting down an obviously dead nominee - like Garland would have been?  Congress, and particularly the Senate, is rightfully made fun of enough for wasting people's time.  The eventualities of such a rule seem to simply compound this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DMC said:

We can talk about reforms all day, but, once again, what is the merit of forcing the majority to vote a nominee down?  Does anybody think anyone that cares enough about SCOTUS nominees is going to change their vote choice because a majority party was forced to grant a nominee hearings and then reject them?  Because I don't.  I mean maybe it would have some marginal effect, but I think there are at least 100 more important issues to deal with.

The main impetus is to make sure they have some say in it - because otherwise potus can pick any of the previous ones, without any sign-off, and.that may not be great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...