Tweet
Originally posted by astralis
View Post
z,
he did, but only after he got an understanding from the judges to really take a good hard look at what to oppose...because opposition for opposition's sake would result in said packing.
right now, the Roberts court has done a pretty good job of not enflaming liberal opinion to the point where packing the court is a must do. as far as I'm concerned, it's a "nice to do", because of the stupid games that McConnell played with Garland...and it would be sweet revenge. but, for the time being it's not worth the flame of doing so.
"forcing consensus" my @$$. when was the last time the filibuster -promoted- bipartisanship? when did the filibuster force the parties to come to a moderate consensus?
the filibuster was DESIGNED as an emergency mechanism to force consensus; then it became used as a cudgel against civil rights; and the modern day incarnation is that it's used on a routine basis to stop anything that doesn't have 60 votes, and in this hyper-polarized environment, that's almost never. it forces the US into a Polish Parliament situation where things turn into utter crises before any action can be taken.
i'd much, much rather see the filibuster destroyed and a later Republican Party using 50 votes to say, pass a capital gains tax cut. because if the people don't like it, they can vote that party out of power.
experimentation, instead of paralysis.
the EC is designed to protect small states, but in our environment where Party is king, it protects a certain party, not states. when was the last time anyone gave a damn about Hawaii, or Rhode Island, or Mississippi?
but, I'm not too concerned about the EC given current trends.
as I wrote earlier, North Carolina is 4 years behind Virginia and is on the cusp of flipping blue. Georgia 4 years behind that; Texas, another 4 years. once Texas goes, the GOP will be -desperate- to change the EC.
uh, no, in 26 states, a third party collecting ballots is perfectly legal. and the few times where there's actually evidence of fraud...it's been on the GOP, like in North Carolina's 2018 elections.
again, though, this is not a "Democratic" or a "Republican" issue. like mail-in voting, the actual party gain is fairly even.
so what? taxation without representation still applies.
I certainly agree it would benefit the Dems, which is why I'm all for it.
but that's on the GOP. if the GOP refuses to even so much as compete for urban or minority votes, then they deserve what's coming to them.
there's absolutely no reason why the GOP cannot successfully compete in those three areas but for the fact that they refuse to change their own unpopular policies.
and REDMAP? and McConnell purposefully holding up confirmation of Obama judges so he could have an empty slate when a GOP President came in, what about that as well?
bottom-line is the GOP has been aggressive about using "hardball" political tactics that smash norms, because the GOP knows their popularity trendline is fundamentally going down. that's precisely why they called 2016 a "flight 93 election".
these things are terrible for a democratic society. I would much rather have Congress be able to negotiate instead of ramming through things on a party-line vote. however, there is NO incentive for the GOP to stop wrecking norms for political gain...until they get a nice big glass of reciprocity.
he did, but only after he got an understanding from the judges to really take a good hard look at what to oppose...because opposition for opposition's sake would result in said packing.
right now, the Roberts court has done a pretty good job of not enflaming liberal opinion to the point where packing the court is a must do. as far as I'm concerned, it's a "nice to do", because of the stupid games that McConnell played with Garland...and it would be sweet revenge. but, for the time being it's not worth the flame of doing so.
"forcing consensus" my @$$. when was the last time the filibuster -promoted- bipartisanship? when did the filibuster force the parties to come to a moderate consensus?
the filibuster was DESIGNED as an emergency mechanism to force consensus; then it became used as a cudgel against civil rights; and the modern day incarnation is that it's used on a routine basis to stop anything that doesn't have 60 votes, and in this hyper-polarized environment, that's almost never. it forces the US into a Polish Parliament situation where things turn into utter crises before any action can be taken.
i'd much, much rather see the filibuster destroyed and a later Republican Party using 50 votes to say, pass a capital gains tax cut. because if the people don't like it, they can vote that party out of power.
experimentation, instead of paralysis.
the EC is designed to protect small states, but in our environment where Party is king, it protects a certain party, not states. when was the last time anyone gave a damn about Hawaii, or Rhode Island, or Mississippi?
but, I'm not too concerned about the EC given current trends.
as I wrote earlier, North Carolina is 4 years behind Virginia and is on the cusp of flipping blue. Georgia 4 years behind that; Texas, another 4 years. once Texas goes, the GOP will be -desperate- to change the EC.
uh, no, in 26 states, a third party collecting ballots is perfectly legal. and the few times where there's actually evidence of fraud...it's been on the GOP, like in North Carolina's 2018 elections.
again, though, this is not a "Democratic" or a "Republican" issue. like mail-in voting, the actual party gain is fairly even.
so what? taxation without representation still applies.
I certainly agree it would benefit the Dems, which is why I'm all for it.
but that's on the GOP. if the GOP refuses to even so much as compete for urban or minority votes, then they deserve what's coming to them.
there's absolutely no reason why the GOP cannot successfully compete in those three areas but for the fact that they refuse to change their own unpopular policies.
and REDMAP? and McConnell purposefully holding up confirmation of Obama judges so he could have an empty slate when a GOP President came in, what about that as well?
bottom-line is the GOP has been aggressive about using "hardball" political tactics that smash norms, because the GOP knows their popularity trendline is fundamentally going down. that's precisely why they called 2016 a "flight 93 election".
these things are terrible for a democratic society. I would much rather have Congress be able to negotiate instead of ramming through things on a party-line vote. however, there is NO incentive for the GOP to stop wrecking norms for political gain...until they get a nice big glass of reciprocity.
Had a long reply wrote but not interested in doing it again. In short the fact that you ignore Harry Reid's norm breaking and put the blame on the GOP highlights your bias blinders.
Comment