|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 15:10:56 GMT -5
We will soon have the same freedoms the people have in Iran, with one-party, one-man rule. The majority of Republicans want Trump to be the Ayatollah. That would be hilarious if it weren't so venal, self-centered, and absolutely vicious to half your fellow travellers on this sphere. To that end here are some choice quotes from WV v. EPA. In there is a wonderful bit about the godfather of American progressivism. Maybe it'll give you more insight into what a Trump fan actually is. Woodrow Wilson
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,417
|
Post by Tamarack on Jul 1, 2022 16:32:12 GMT -5
I stand by my comments and make no apology for a bit of hyperbole
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 1, 2022 17:34:44 GMT -5
The Executive Branch has been weakened. Millring should be happy. The majority of Republicans want Trump to be the Ayatollah.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jul 1, 2022 17:37:31 GMT -5
Some of the Soundhole moderaterin' coming into focus.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 17:38:16 GMT -5
I stand by my comments and make no apology for a bit of hyperbole Figured. That's why we're happy to keep driving you nucking futs.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 17:39:38 GMT -5
Some of the Soundhole moderaterin' coming into focus. It's taken you that long to see it?
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,417
|
Post by Tamarack on Jul 1, 2022 18:09:16 GMT -5
I was speaking for myself.
My status as a moderator has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by amanajoe on Jul 1, 2022 18:46:58 GMT -5
That right there negates his whole point. Calling the republican use of filibuster abuse after the democrats used it a record 328 times during 2019 - 2020 session and used it 657 times since 2009, so half the times they used it in the last 13 years was in one year, just to block anything and everything. The lends to bias, which means, he's got a lot of work to do to prove to me that his entire argument is full of you know what. Perhaps you didn't read the article/s She, not he doesn't have a single whole point and in other articles, (she writes widely and with well informed authority, she is a history Professor and author), has discussed the history and circumstances of filibuster usage and cloture by Democrats and Republicans. This article was not the one to revisit all that though and your cursory dismissal of the whole piece and all the supporting history for every one of her widely supported/shared, knowledgeable and deeply researched observations and explanations is odd.
I realize my comment was decidedly antagonistic, but I thought that's what you guys like so we can get to the name calling and the moderators can lock the thread. While it was odd, it is not wholeheartedly inaccurate.
Bias affirmation does affect the entire argument. She could have said past abuse of the filibuster, but called out a single party as the abusers instead. Either being drastically inaccurate in the belief that as a professor no one would argue the statement or through a malformation of the ability of critical thinking she loses the argument. Also, arguments that stare decisis out weigh any other means or understanding of the law (that people that sat on the bench 50 or a 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago when they upheld something) gives no credence to any other scholarly learning on subjects is a poor one as well. Stare decisis weighs heavily but does not shut down the entirety of a finding if it weighs heavier than the precedent. If that argument was truly the only consideration, then why can't the entire dissent written by Breyer and agreed to by Sotomayor and Kagan just read "Stare Decisis Says NO!"?
Amazingly enough, now that I see her tweets about the court "going rogue" and "full-blown constitutional crisis" I can't understand you thinking that is she is a great source of scholarly knowledge.
As to the He versus She, I will admit to misreading the name as Heath and not Heather. The start of your posting called out Prof. Richardson, so you can now point out that as bias affirmation and negate my argument as well I'm done getting involved in these threads.
|
|
|
Post by amanajoe on Jul 1, 2022 18:55:12 GMT -5
The real filibuster crime is that they don’t actually do it any longer. One side says “We’re going to filibuster this.” so the other side says “OK, we give up.” and that’s the end of it. They used to have to take the floor and talk for several days on end. Take the total number of filibusters over a time period and multiply by three or so to get the number of days filibusters should have used up. Dub,
I'm with you 100%. This current "Throw a red flag and walk away" is not a filibuster in any way, shape, or form of what the whole parliamentary procedure was / is supposed to be. The idea of removing the filibuster is even dumber though. If simple majority is all that is needed, the pendulum on laws will constantly swing back and forth with every change of majority. There would be a constant series of reversals every 2-4 years before the supreme court would even get a chance to make a ruling on technical grounds that everyone would be up in arms about ;-).
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 19:10:13 GMT -5
I'm done getting involved in these threads.
Phew. That could spare me a hell of a lot of pointless typing! 😉
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jul 1, 2022 19:11:40 GMT -5
Joe, I disagree with part of what you said. I think the filibuster should be abolished.
"If simple majority is all that is needed, the pendulum on laws will constantly swing back and forth with every change of majority. There would be a constant series of reversals every 2-4 years before the supreme court would even get a chance to make a ruling on technical grounds that everyone would be up in arms about."
My state legislature has no filibuster. What you predict doesn't happen. Right now, if I recall correctly, the Republicans have a one-vote edge in both houses. They're passing laws right and left that many Democrats find abhorrent. Lots of voting restrictions, universal vouchers for private school, etc.
But that's democracy. If people don't like it, they can vote differently next time and put in a Democratic majority that will repeal all those things. It won't put the world into a tizzy. If we abolished the filibuster on the federal level, the party in power could actually govern. The people would have the same remedy if they don't like the results.
Minority rule may look good when you prefer the minority. It's corrosive in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 1, 2022 19:12:54 GMT -5
... The start of your posting called out Prof. Richardson, so you can now point out that as bias affirmation and negate my argument as well I'm done getting involved in these threads. Too bad. You did a nice job of illustrating her bias. I don't think a bias of and by itself dismisses an argument, but it is certainly a good thing to be aware of. (I was unaware of filibuster data you mentioned. Ah, politics, gotta love it.)
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 19:13:23 GMT -5
The Republicans were court packing particularly feverishly during that 2019-20 flurry.
|
|
|
Post by amanajoe on Jul 1, 2022 19:28:37 GMT -5
Joe, I disagree with part of what you said. I think the filibuster should be abolished. "If simple majority is all that is needed, the pendulum on laws will constantly swing back and forth with every change of majority. There would be a constant series of reversals every 2-4 years before the supreme court would even get a chance to make a ruling on technical grounds that everyone would be up in arms about." My state legislature has no filibuster. What you predict doesn't happen. Right now, if I recall correctly, the Republicans have a one-vote edge in both houses. They're passing laws right and left that many Democrats find abhorrent. Lots of voting restrictions, universal vouchers for private school, etc. But that's democracy. If people don't like it, they can vote differently next time and put in a Democratic majority that will repeal all those things. It won't put the world into a tizzy. If we abolished the filibuster on the federal level, the party in power could actually govern. The people would have the same remedy if they don't like the results. Minority rule may look good when you prefer the minority. It's corrosive in the long run. The old adage of democracy being 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner still seems correct. I don’t want many congress, state or federal, constantly rehashing what’s on the books, move on to handling todays problems was kinda my point.
|
|
|
Post by amanajoe on Jul 1, 2022 19:31:14 GMT -5
I'm done getting involved in these threads.
Phew. That could spare me a hell of a lot of pointless typing! 😉 I’m willing to state that when it comes to political threads, everything you, I and everyone else types IS basically pointless by definition.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 19:40:52 GMT -5
However, I think the ongoing attacks on decades and more of civil rights, gay rights, women's rights, environmental protection, voting rights and much more that are being heralded by the abandonment of case law precedent and the potentially unfettered power of unchecked state level actors were never likely to go unremarked upon.
Edit - I could have put that better/clearer but off screen life is intruding.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jul 1, 2022 19:43:19 GMT -5
"I’m willing to state that when it comes to political threads, everything you, I and everyone else types IS basically pointless by definition."
About that we agree. I finally realized that I seldom care about anyone else's opinion and there's no reason other people should care about mine. It's different (in my view) if an opinion is supported by reasoning, experience or facts that are persuasive and might prompt a change in my own thinking. Unfortunately that's rare. If it's just a bare opinion then, really, why should any of us care? Venting is allowed here but no rule says we have to pay attention.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 1, 2022 20:44:57 GMT -5
The Executive Branch has been weakened. Millring should be happy. . I make no claim about what’s right or wrong, just that Millring should be happy.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Jul 1, 2022 20:49:58 GMT -5
The Republicans were court packing particularly feverishly during that 2019-20 flurry. Technically, no. Court-packing refers to expanding the number of justices on the court. I get what you're saying, though. These decisions swing both ways. There's so much hyperbole on all sides about their decisions it's difficult to see what's really happening.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jul 1, 2022 21:43:48 GMT -5
"These decisions swing both ways. There's so much hyperbole on all sides about their decisions it's difficult to see what's really happening."
It's hard to argue with that.
As for "court packing," in its early years of statehood Arizona had three Supreme Court justices. That's was expanded to five and it's been five for most of our history. Three or four years back, our current governor asked the legislature to expand the court to seven members, as the law allowed. The legislature did. The fact that the Rs were very worried that they might soon lose their legislative majority may have played a part. The governor got to appoint two new members who think like Kavanaugh and Barrett. The law allowed that. There was no big ruckus. I didn't like the result but it was legal. Elections have consequences. "Court packing" is only an outrage when the other party does it.
|
|