|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 22 2020 01:54 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:38 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2020 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what supreme court mythology you guys read but it was always political/partisan and far from an institution of decency. Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on. This is a direct result of the filibuster reform. It used to be possible to do without a super majority, now it requires one. The SC did some other things like it throughout history but they're notably really bad for the most part (Plessy V Ferguson). Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. Controsversial legislation used to be able to pass with 50 or 51 votes, now it takes 60. So anything controversial dies, for better or worse.
This is unrelated to the cultural/political reasons lawmakers don't take risks though, right? Senators being slimy and slippery doesn't seem related to the voting rules. The idea that trying to fix something often has pros and cons isn't related to 51/60. And the fact that a political rival would say "I would have fixed it, but only pros! no cons! vote for me!" and likely win for saying that, is also not related to that. To me, that is just as big of an issue.
|
On September 22 2020 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 01:54 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:38 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2020 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what supreme court mythology you guys read but it was always political/partisan and far from an institution of decency. Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on. This is a direct result of the filibuster reform. It used to be possible to do without a super majority, now it requires one. The SC did some other things like it throughout history but they're notably really bad for the most part (Plessy V Ferguson). Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. Controsversial legislation used to be able to pass with 50 or 51 votes, now it takes 60. So anything controversial dies, for better or worse. This is unrelated to the cultural/political reasons lawmakers don't take risks though, right? Senators being slimy and slippery doesn't seem related to the voting rules. The idea that trying to fix something often has pros and cons isn't related to 51/60. And the fact that a political rival would say "I would have fixed it, but only pros! no cons! vote for me!" and likely win for saying that, is also not related to that. To me, that is just as big of an issue.
It lets them punt to the SC a lot more. Getting 1/2 +1 of the body to agree to something is a LOT easier than 2/3. Think of how many grandstanding votes we've had by both sides that they knew couldn't pass.
Take a look at some of the tiebroken votes from 1945-1960
Taft amendment to H.R. 2013 (Lend-Lease Extension Act of 1945) to block the postwar delivery of Lend-Lease Act items contracted for during World War II. Amendment defeated.
April 22, 1959 Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the McClellan amendment to S. 1555 (Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) to add a bill of rights for union members to include guarantees of freedom of speech and periodic secret elections of officers. Yea: 46–45 Motion agreed to. A bill of rights for union workers was included in the final bill that was passed and enacted.
Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the Clark amendment to S. 8 (Emergency Federal Assistance for School Construction Act) to authorize $1.1 billion per year of federal funds for an indefinite period for school construction and teachers' salaries.
Motion agreed to. A scaled-down version of the federal education funds passed later.
Knowland amendment to H.R. 10660 (Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) to permit state agencies to determine prevailing wages for projects in the Interstate Highway System.[21]
All of these would have been filibustered instead today and either been unresolved or only resolved when they wound up before the SC.
|
On September 22 2020 02:10 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:54 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:38 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2020 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what supreme court mythology you guys read but it was always political/partisan and far from an institution of decency. Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on. This is a direct result of the filibuster reform. It used to be possible to do without a super majority, now it requires one. The SC did some other things like it throughout history but they're notably really bad for the most part (Plessy V Ferguson). Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. Controsversial legislation used to be able to pass with 50 or 51 votes, now it takes 60. So anything controversial dies, for better or worse. This is unrelated to the cultural/political reasons lawmakers don't take risks though, right? Senators being slimy and slippery doesn't seem related to the voting rules. The idea that trying to fix something often has pros and cons isn't related to 51/60. And the fact that a political rival would say "I would have fixed it, but only pros! no cons! vote for me!" and likely win for saying that, is also not related to that. To me, that is just as big of an issue. It lets them punt to the SC a lot more. Getting 1/2 +1 of the body to agree to something is a LOT easier than 2/3. Think of how many grandstanding votes we've had by both sides that they knew couldn't pass. Take a look at some of the tiebroken votes from 1945-1960 Show nested quote +
Taft amendment to H.R. 2013 (Lend-Lease Extension Act of 1945) to block the postwar delivery of Lend-Lease Act items contracted for during World War II. Amendment defeated.
Show nested quote +April 22, 1959 Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the McClellan amendment to S. 1555 (Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) to add a bill of rights for union members to include guarantees of freedom of speech and periodic secret elections of officers. Yea: 46–45 Motion agreed to. A bill of rights for union workers was included in the final bill that was passed and enacted. Show nested quote +Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the Clark amendment to S. 8 (Emergency Federal Assistance for School Construction Act) to authorize $1.1 billion per year of federal funds for an indefinite period for school construction and teachers' salaries.
Motion agreed to. A scaled-down version of the federal education funds passed later.
Show nested quote +
Knowland amendment to H.R. 10660 (Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) to permit state agencies to determine prevailing wages for projects in the Interstate Highway System.[21]
All of these would have been filibustered instead today and either been unresolved or only resolved when they wound up before the SC.
Thanks for the explanation. Can you clarify what exactly "allows" them to punt it to the SC means? What is the criteria that must be met for something to stop being a senate thing and start being a SC thing?
|
On September 22 2020 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 02:10 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:54 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:38 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2020 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what supreme court mythology you guys read but it was always political/partisan and far from an institution of decency. Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on. This is a direct result of the filibuster reform. It used to be possible to do without a super majority, now it requires one. The SC did some other things like it throughout history but they're notably really bad for the most part (Plessy V Ferguson). Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. Controsversial legislation used to be able to pass with 50 or 51 votes, now it takes 60. So anything controversial dies, for better or worse. This is unrelated to the cultural/political reasons lawmakers don't take risks though, right? Senators being slimy and slippery doesn't seem related to the voting rules. The idea that trying to fix something often has pros and cons isn't related to 51/60. And the fact that a political rival would say "I would have fixed it, but only pros! no cons! vote for me!" and likely win for saying that, is also not related to that. To me, that is just as big of an issue. It lets them punt to the SC a lot more. Getting 1/2 +1 of the body to agree to something is a LOT easier than 2/3. Think of how many grandstanding votes we've had by both sides that they knew couldn't pass. Take a look at some of the tiebroken votes from 1945-1960
Taft amendment to H.R. 2013 (Lend-Lease Extension Act of 1945) to block the postwar delivery of Lend-Lease Act items contracted for during World War II. Amendment defeated.
April 22, 1959 Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the McClellan amendment to S. 1555 (Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) to add a bill of rights for union members to include guarantees of freedom of speech and periodic secret elections of officers. Yea: 46–45 Motion agreed to. A bill of rights for union workers was included in the final bill that was passed and enacted. Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the Clark amendment to S. 8 (Emergency Federal Assistance for School Construction Act) to authorize $1.1 billion per year of federal funds for an indefinite period for school construction and teachers' salaries.
Motion agreed to. A scaled-down version of the federal education funds passed later.
Knowland amendment to H.R. 10660 (Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) to permit state agencies to determine prevailing wages for projects in the Interstate Highway System.[21]
All of these would have been filibustered instead today and either been unresolved or only resolved when they wound up before the SC. Thanks for the explanation. Can you clarify what exactly "allows" them to punt it to the SC means? What is the criteria that must be met for something to stop being a senate thing and start being a SC thing?
This may be a little off base, but things stop being a Senate thing and start being a SC court thing when action is urgently needed on the thing and the Senate is incapable of getting it's shit together to do anything.
Somewhat related to this is the way Mitch McConnell kills bills that his caucus doesn't have any interest in passing. He prevents them from ever getting to the floor for a vote, so Republicans don't have to have votes on record that their opponents can run against or make campaign adds out of.
|
On September 22 2020 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 02:10 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:54 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:38 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2020 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what supreme court mythology you guys read but it was always political/partisan and far from an institution of decency. Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on. This is a direct result of the filibuster reform. It used to be possible to do without a super majority, now it requires one. The SC did some other things like it throughout history but they're notably really bad for the most part (Plessy V Ferguson). Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. Controsversial legislation used to be able to pass with 50 or 51 votes, now it takes 60. So anything controversial dies, for better or worse. This is unrelated to the cultural/political reasons lawmakers don't take risks though, right? Senators being slimy and slippery doesn't seem related to the voting rules. The idea that trying to fix something often has pros and cons isn't related to 51/60. And the fact that a political rival would say "I would have fixed it, but only pros! no cons! vote for me!" and likely win for saying that, is also not related to that. To me, that is just as big of an issue. It lets them punt to the SC a lot more. Getting 1/2 +1 of the body to agree to something is a LOT easier than 2/3. Think of how many grandstanding votes we've had by both sides that they knew couldn't pass. Take a look at some of the tiebroken votes from 1945-1960
Taft amendment to H.R. 2013 (Lend-Lease Extension Act of 1945) to block the postwar delivery of Lend-Lease Act items contracted for during World War II. Amendment defeated.
April 22, 1959 Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the McClellan amendment to S. 1555 (Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) to add a bill of rights for union members to include guarantees of freedom of speech and periodic secret elections of officers. Yea: 46–45 Motion agreed to. A bill of rights for union workers was included in the final bill that was passed and enacted. Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the Clark amendment to S. 8 (Emergency Federal Assistance for School Construction Act) to authorize $1.1 billion per year of federal funds for an indefinite period for school construction and teachers' salaries.
Motion agreed to. A scaled-down version of the federal education funds passed later.
Knowland amendment to H.R. 10660 (Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) to permit state agencies to determine prevailing wages for projects in the Interstate Highway System.[21]
All of these would have been filibustered instead today and either been unresolved or only resolved when they wound up before the SC. Thanks for the explanation. Can you clarify what exactly "allows" them to punt it to the SC means? What is the criteria that must be met for something to stop being a senate thing and start being a SC thing?
Before 1974, filibusters were harder to do and harder to break if the opposition was determined, but easier if they weren't. They required actually standing and speaking and could only be broken with 2/3 of those present.
After 1974, filibusters could be done with signaling of intent only and required 3/5 of all non-vacant. So the requirement became 60 for all votes, when before it was only 66 for a full session.
No one cared enough about the things I listed above to stand and talk for days on end, but they were still immensely important. The only even close to successful filibusters at the time (and they still got broken) were on civil rights or for wars (we didn't have a filibuster breaking mechanism at all until arming merchant ships in ww1 was filibustered by 12 anti war senators).
The other aspect is that currently 1 GOP senator can stay in washington and filibuster everything even though he only has 1 vote, but it'd take the full 60 democrats to break it. So it becomes a strategic rather than a tactical maneuver.
Now, how does this result in punting to the SC? Say it's something critical. The senators, when asked about passing a bill like DACA or gay marriage or a mask mandate, say that they don't have 60 votes and refuse to even discuss it. They use it as a shield to pretend they're powerless. These then wind up before the SC because the executive then has to just make stuff up with EOs, since congress never gave input. I'd be fine with the filibuster having been nuked at the start of 2020, as it would have forced the GOP to actually do something about COVID, even if the bills were idiotic, rather than continually passing bills they knew would die.
Reconciliation has been bent into a pretzel to allow for avoiding the filibuster, applying to things it should never have touched like tax cuts. It was strictly to be used for non controversial or critical budgets in its original vision.
The only people in favor of the current filibuster are those who aim to legislate from the bench, like Danglars or McConnell - once they have a solid majority they'll repeal the precedent that allows the executive branch to overturn past EOs with new ones. They've already signaled their intent to do this btw, look up the headline about "Thomas , disagreeing with Thomas, cites Thomas" which was entirely about repealing it.
|
On September 22 2020 02:36 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 02:10 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:54 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:38 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2020 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2020 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on. This is a direct result of the filibuster reform. It used to be possible to do without a super majority, now it requires one. The SC did some other things like it throughout history but they're notably really bad for the most part (Plessy V Ferguson). Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. Controsversial legislation used to be able to pass with 50 or 51 votes, now it takes 60. So anything controversial dies, for better or worse. This is unrelated to the cultural/political reasons lawmakers don't take risks though, right? Senators being slimy and slippery doesn't seem related to the voting rules. The idea that trying to fix something often has pros and cons isn't related to 51/60. And the fact that a political rival would say "I would have fixed it, but only pros! no cons! vote for me!" and likely win for saying that, is also not related to that. To me, that is just as big of an issue. It lets them punt to the SC a lot more. Getting 1/2 +1 of the body to agree to something is a LOT easier than 2/3. Think of how many grandstanding votes we've had by both sides that they knew couldn't pass. Take a look at some of the tiebroken votes from 1945-1960
Taft amendment to H.R. 2013 (Lend-Lease Extension Act of 1945) to block the postwar delivery of Lend-Lease Act items contracted for during World War II. Amendment defeated.
April 22, 1959 Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the McClellan amendment to S. 1555 (Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959) to add a bill of rights for union members to include guarantees of freedom of speech and periodic secret elections of officers. Yea: 46–45 Motion agreed to. A bill of rights for union workers was included in the final bill that was passed and enacted. Motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote on the Clark amendment to S. 8 (Emergency Federal Assistance for School Construction Act) to authorize $1.1 billion per year of federal funds for an indefinite period for school construction and teachers' salaries.
Motion agreed to. A scaled-down version of the federal education funds passed later.
Knowland amendment to H.R. 10660 (Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) to permit state agencies to determine prevailing wages for projects in the Interstate Highway System.[21]
All of these would have been filibustered instead today and either been unresolved or only resolved when they wound up before the SC. Thanks for the explanation. Can you clarify what exactly "allows" them to punt it to the SC means? What is the criteria that must be met for something to stop being a senate thing and start being a SC thing? Before 1974, filibusters were harder to do and harder to break if the opposition was determined, but easier if they weren't. They required actually standing and speaking and could only be broken with 2/3 of those present. After 1974, filibusters could be done with signaling of intent only and required 3/5 of all non-vacant. So the requirement became 60 for all votes, when before it was only 66 for a full session. No one cared enough about the things I listed above to stand and talk for days on end, but they were still immensely important. The only even close to successful filibusters at the time (and they still got broken) were on civil rights or for wars (we didn't have a filibuster breaking mechanism at all until arming merchant ships in ww1 was filibustered by 12 anti war senators). The other aspect is that currently 1 GOP senator can stay in washington and filibuster everything even though he only has 1 vote, but it'd take the full 60 democrats to break it. So it becomes a strategic rather than a tactical maneuver. Now, how does this result in punting to the SC? Say it's something critical. The senators, when asked about passing a bill like DACA or gay marriage or a mask mandate, say that they don't have 60 votes and refuse to even discuss it. They use it as a shield to pretend they're powerless. These then wind up before the SC because the executive then has to just make stuff up with EOs, since congress never gave input. I'd be fine with the filibuster having been nuked at the start of 2020, as it would have forced the GOP to actually do something about COVID, even if the bills were idiotic, rather than continually passing bills they knew would die. Reconciliation has been bent into a pretzel to allow for avoiding the filibuster, applying to things it should never have touched like tax cuts. It was strictly to be used for non controversial or critical budgets in its original vision. The only people in favor of the current filibuster are those who aim to legislate from the bench, like Danglars or McConnell - once they have a solid majority they'll repeal the precedent that allows the executive branch to overturn past EOs with new ones. They've already signaled their intent to do this btw, look up the headline about "Thomas , disagreeing with Thomas, cites Thomas" which was entirely about repealing it.
The filibuster sounds like the most insane piece of garbage ever. what a complete disaster. I can't believe we have let this go on for so long. Thank you for the explanation.
Fundamentally, the government needs to be able to act.
|
The only thing crazier was that there was no mechanism for ending one until 1917 lol. Perfect the constitution is not.
The entire mechanism of a filibuster was unintentionally created by Aaron Burr in 1806 (we can tell it was unintentional since one didn't happen until 1937)
|
Fundamentally, it should never be possible to obstruct the progress of legislation by any less than the majority of participants. Anything else would be ignoring the idea that legislation is necessary and beneficial. No one should want filibusters. Someone wanna devil's advocate? Who are we protecting?
|
www.independent.co.uk
“This state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough, and they were strong. You have good genes, you know that, right?” Mr Trump said to applause from supporters.
“You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”
That's ... something.
Telling a white crowd that their ancestors had good genes. To me it's borderline white supremacy, and not full on nazi as the article suggest. But that's still pretty bad in 2020 with the rise of white supremacy terrorism.
|
On September 22 2020 01:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 01:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2020 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't know what supreme court mythology you guys read but it was always political/partisan and far from an institution of decency. Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on.
You definitely have a wide swath of major legislation pieces of the time being brought through courts throughout US history and decided there on a partisan half-plus-one basis. Those are common enough that a long list could be made.
You also have several decisions that are just so deeply bad, often ruled on party lines, that it just boggles the mind. Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott, and (although a special case, still kind of counts) the Hayes vs Tilden presidential election are examples off-hand, I'm sure there's plenty more. The only thing in the current era that seems comparable on that front is Citizens United, which is a lot less bad.
Not sure I agree with the seemingly tangential point on filibusters made by others since there are good, genuine reasons to have one if the mechanism is as difficult as it once was to invoke. There are, however, historical examples of "activist courts" shaping the law which isn't considered to be a good thing. Our current court probably qualifies as an activist court.
|
On September 22 2020 03:01 Erasme wrote:www.independent.co.ukShow nested quote +“This state was pioneered by men and women who braved the wilderness and the winters to build a better life for themselves and for their families. They were tough, and they were strong. You have good genes, you know that, right?” Mr Trump said to applause from supporters.
“You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes isn’t it, don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.” That's ... something. Telling a white crowd that their ancestors had good genes. To me it's borderline white supremacy, and not full on nazi as the article suggest. But that's still pretty bad in 2020 with the rise of white supremacy terrorism.
Racehorse theory is eugenics. The rise of eugenics in the fields of science and law in the US was heavily used by Hitler and Nazi Germany in implementing the Nuremberg Laws. Including, but not limited to, Buck v Bell (to tie in SCOTUS)
|
On September 22 2020 03:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Fundamentally, it should never be possible to obstruct the progress of legislation by any less than the majority of participants. Anything else would be ignoring the idea that legislation is necessary and beneficial. No one should want filibusters. Someone wanna devil's advocate? Who are we protecting? The usual argument is the tyranny of the majority. Without the filibuster the majority would do whatever they want with no regard for the minority.
(I don't believe in it, just stating what people bring up as the reason when they defend the filibuster)
|
It's also helpful to remember that the Senate was designed to serve as a kind of anti-democratic counterweight to the House, one that was justified on very dated notions of "government by gentlemen." That's part of what makes McConnell more powerful than Pelosi, the Senate Majority Leader has way more "norms and soft standards" cards than the Speaker does.
|
On September 22 2020 03:30 farvacola wrote:
It's also helpful to remember that the Senate was designed to serve as a kind of anti-democratic counterweight to the House, one that was justified on very dated notions of "government by gentlemen." That's part of what makes McConnell more powerful than Pelosi, the Senate Majority Leader has way more "norms and soft standards" cards than the Speaker does.
What i am hearing is that our political system is completely beyond saving and that there is no reason for someone with easy international mobility to stick around.
|
On September 22 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 03:30 farvacola wrote:
It's also helpful to remember that the Senate was designed to serve as a kind of anti-democratic counterweight to the House, one that was justified on very dated notions of "government by gentlemen." That's part of what makes McConnell more powerful than Pelosi, the Senate Majority Leader has way more "norms and soft standards" cards than the Speaker does. What i am hearing is that our political system is completely beyond saving and that there is no reason for someone with easy international mobility to stick around. the people with easy international mobility tends to be reasonably wealthy. And for someone who is wealthy the US isn't so bad so long as you can ignore the questionable morality around you.
|
On September 22 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 03:30 farvacola wrote:
It's also helpful to remember that the Senate was designed to serve as a kind of anti-democratic counterweight to the House, one that was justified on very dated notions of "government by gentlemen." That's part of what makes McConnell more powerful than Pelosi, the Senate Majority Leader has way more "norms and soft standards" cards than the Speaker does. What i am hearing is that our political system is completely beyond saving and that there is no reason for someone with easy international mobility to stick around.
Maybe we are already in a state of civil war. What would civil war even look in a 21st century superpower with a modern military? Wouldn't it look something like this?
Or, you know, it's just politics as usual. Maybe civil war worthy of the name is impossible in a modern superpower.
|
If you were in a civil war, you'd know. You have plenty of examples all around the world. Pick one.
|
On September 22 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 03:30 farvacola wrote:
It's also helpful to remember that the Senate was designed to serve as a kind of anti-democratic counterweight to the House, one that was justified on very dated notions of "government by gentlemen." That's part of what makes McConnell more powerful than Pelosi, the Senate Majority Leader has way more "norms and soft standards" cards than the Speaker does. What i am hearing is that our political system is completely beyond saving and that there is no reason for someone with easy international mobility to stick around.
I guess, but that seems the coward's way out to me given my personal belief that I am obligated to the place from which I come. I also have bar licensures and a JD that are decidedly less valuable abroad, so there's a lot of sunk costs for me. I wouldn't hold choices like that against anyone, but I recommend folks seriously considering expatriation do deep research, there's a lot of good info out there on what shook out during previous periods of serious civil discord, particularly the Vietnam War era. Many of the people who dodged the draft to places like Canada ended up deeply regretting their choice, and in their cases they were actively avoiding something specific.
All of the hand wringing in the face of pushes for systemic changes we clearly need is flatly ahistoric imo. Things are only the way they are until they aren't, and the perceived feasibility of changes that seem unthinkable says more about the person doing the perceiving than actual likelihoods. Cue that sig from IgnE :D
|
On September 22 2020 03:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:On September 22 2020 03:30 farvacola wrote:
It's also helpful to remember that the Senate was designed to serve as a kind of anti-democratic counterweight to the House, one that was justified on very dated notions of "government by gentlemen." That's part of what makes McConnell more powerful than Pelosi, the Senate Majority Leader has way more "norms and soft standards" cards than the Speaker does. What i am hearing is that our political system is completely beyond saving and that there is no reason for someone with easy international mobility to stick around. the people with easy international mobility tends to be reasonably wealthy. And for someone who is wealthy the US isn't so bad so long as you can ignore the questionable morality around you.
I'm "wealthy" by international standards but my wife is basically completely incapable of swallowing the idea of being a participant in a country that has a poor relative morality rating when compared to other 1st world countries. If my wife's family magically existed in another country, we'd already have our house listed. Even if Biden wins, the US is objectively worse than quite a few other possibilities, so long as you have a lot of money and education.
|
On September 22 2020 03:46 Erasme wrote:
If you were in a civil war, you'd know. You have plenty of examples all around the world. Pick one.
None of them are superpowers though. Was Russia's invasion of Ukraine a civil war?
Edit: I don't mean to send the conversation down a rabbithole on Ukraine. My only point is that it's hard for me to even imagine what a civil war would look like, or how far unrest can really go. Division of the country by vote seems more probable to me than any conflict between organized (para)military forces. But who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
