Unit2Sucks said:
sycasey said:
calbear93 said:
sycasey said:
calbear93 said:
sycasey said:
calbear93 said:
sycasey said:
calbear93 said:
sycasey said:
calbear93 said:
sycasey said:
bearister said:
Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxins
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/28/republicans-bill-healthcare-military-veterans-jon-stewart?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Bill gets 55 out of 100 votes and loses. Nice democracy we have here.
Not sure the two are related unless you think we should move from representative democracy to having citizens vote on all things. For example, a President unilaterally can veto a bill that requires an even greater supermajority of both houses to overturn. Assume you have no issue with Biden having veto power after the midterms.
I think the filibuster needs to go away. Or at least have a higher bar to implement.
And yes, I am comfortable with this even when Republicans have control of the Senate. Let them take responsibility for what they can pass.
Are you comfortable with a single man having veto powers within the context of your view of democracy if you have issues with a filibuster in the senate?
Sure. But maybe the President should be popularly elected, not through the Electoral College. (The Senate already has enough of an electoral-college effect.)
Seems a bit inconsistent that you are OK with a President having unilateral veto power as long as he/she is elected by a popular vote while you have an issue with a democracy having a supermajority requirement to break a filibuster in house of senators who are elected by popular vote in their respective state. I think you have an issue with Democrats not being able to pass bills with a 50-50 split but I suspect you did not have an issue with the democrats using the same procedure number of time when the Republican had the senate before the 2020 election. Not an issue with our democracy but an issue with inability to win more seats in the senate. I am expecting there to be no debate on the value of filibuster here when the democrats are in the minority in the senate in the near future.
No, I think the filibuster gums up the works too much and does not allow popular legislation to pass. If the popular legislation happens to be Republican-supported, then so be it, we need to win more votes next time. If it's good enough to get 55 votes then I don't see why it shouldn't pass.
The President having veto power is by design of the different branches of government having checks on each other's power. The Senate's filibuster rule is an unnecessary check on itself.
It was intended as a self-imposed check on populist sentiments that could impose onerous rules on the minority. That protection may lead to some bad results as we have seen when either side has had the majority but concepts like innocent until proven guilty for criminal trials may lead to some guilty getting off free, we sometimes deal with the bad to protect the good. The house of representative is a purely populist arm of the congress. Just like a veto was a constitutional check, filibuster was a procedural check imposed as a check on the majority in what was considered the more informed and less populist side of congress. I don't feel strongly either way, but it is not a democracy issue in a country where we are OK with one man having veto power. It is whether the good is now outweighed by the bad.
I mean, the Senate itself is already a democracy issue, given the extreme population differences we now have between states. No need to add more procedural hurdles within it.
If the senate wasn't meant to allow each state to have equal say in at least one house of congress, why even have a senate? The house of representative is what you are seeking and all you need if you want a populist democracy. The house has a lot more crazies as you would expect in a populist body but a senate wouldn't be needed if you disagree with their reason for being.
The Founders imagined having a Senate; I accept that. They weren't interested in fully populist democracy. They didn't imagine needing supermajorities for passing simple legislation through it.
Yeah, I don't recall the constitution mentioning a senate parliamentarian or filibuster.
Can you explain the point of this post?
I wrote very clearly that filibuster is a self-imposed check by the senate. Who even suggested this was a constitutional check?
You and I have debated the constitution before. I suspect you know I don't believe 50 senators can amend the constitution. In fact, because filibuster is just a procedural rule, it isn't even granted a debate opportunity that would trigger a filibuster.
So, again, what is this post intended to counter? We were just having a debate on the merits of the filibuster and whether the bad now outweighs the good. We certainly were not debating the source of filibuster.
