dajo9 said:
calbear93 said:
dajo9 said:
There is a big difference between protecting minority rights and putting a landholding minority in charge.
And when have these Constitutional bodies meant to protect minorities ever protected actual minorities? The Senate was the last sanctuary of the Dixiecrats. The electoral college? Nothing since they stopped Andrew Jackson. It's all a farce and it requires serious changes if we want to talk about the sanctity of a democratic republic.
I disagree. And when was the last time minorities were protected? How about the minorities represented by residents of Iowa who would otherwise be subjected the will of those like you or me by having no meaningful voice in any branches of the government.
Again, every ******* has an opinion. The left was celebrating when the filibuster rule was eliminated for appointment of justices when the left had a majority in the Senate. They didn't want to
compromise. That allowed for Republicans to do the same for the Supreme Court justices when they had the majority, and there was no longer any need to seek moderate nominees. Example of the tyranny of majority.
The left was not celebrating when Reid ended the judicial filibuster. The timing was a major strategic blunder and Markos Moulitsas, founder of Dailykos.com wrote extensively about it at the time. It was obvious at the time the Democrats were about to lose the Senate and so the timing was another major strategic blunder by Democratic leaders.
But to the larger point, the filibuster does not enforce the appointment of moderate judges when an extreme partisan like McConnell is in charge. Garland was the moderate.
Things like the filibuster used to work because of people, not the Constitution. The Republican Party has changed and accepts no compromise. The Democratic Party has the support of the American people and needs to respond in kind.
First, I believe the fact is that the nuclear option of eliminating the filibuster was supported in 2013 by only Democrats including the current minority leader, Warren and Sanders, and no Republican voted for it. With that, referring to some abstract writer as evidence that the left did not support is confusing. In fact, Warren, as recently as primary debate, pushed for removing filibuster altogether.
Whether a bill or appointment is brought to a debate and vote has always been up to the majority leader and was not a rule change. That is not a counterpoint to be wary of removing long standing protections.
Weak minded fools keep eliminating protections because it is inconvenient for them and then complain when the tables are turned. I am good with the protections and the checks and balances we have. If anything, I think politicians on both sides are foolish for not respecting them enough, including the Republicans in the Senate.