I do not want to paint with a broad brush, but I think a narrow majority of Democratic senators and leaders are perfectly content to enjoy the perks of their office and not actually fight for anything but preserving the status quo.
That the status quo is unpopular with Democratic voters and many Americans hardly matters. They have theirs, fuck the rest of us.
And always remember, states' rights are only sacrosanct when trying to discriminate or make life worse for people. The ultimate Republican goal: Kill as many of us as possible with miasma, pestilence and famine. Also helps to have a 6-3 regressive court too.
I actually think a filibuster can be useful if it adhered to its original idea—that a minority, if big enough (say, more than 40%) could slow down legislation that needs to be further discussed. You can imagine a crisis which Congress reacts to with haste and poorly considered legislation, and wants to jam through on a party line vote. But if debate is extended for even a little while, the minority can bring attention to unintended consequences of the bill, and get necessary changes. Such a filibuster should (1) have a time limit (say 90 days), (2) apply to all legislation or confirmations, and (3) require actual floor debate about the bill, not just stall tactics.
What we have instead is an abomination. Filibusters only apply to certain legislation with no reasoning behind that (why should it matter if it is related to budgets?), they go indefinitely so they’re essentially a supermajority requirement rather than an extension of debate, and there’s no requirement to actually debate the bill. It is very stupid that Democrats did not make this reform when they had the chance, and you can be sure Republicans will do whatever they want when they’re running the show.
And with the ACA, there was actual serious debate. Many progressives complain about the lack of a public option or other concessions made that were necessary because Pelosi/Reid had to wrangle a coalition of Democrats with a broad range of ideologies (That's how you got a massive supermajority in the first place). However, they were committed to passing a bill, whereas Republicans just want to obstruct on general principle.
Why formally get rid of something when it's inconvenient if you can ignore it without consequences? Especially if you can use it when it's convenient, because Dems will let them if they ever get back in the majority, because of "norms" and "bipartisanship."
Speaking of SCOTUS, it's like how Biden couldn't get student debt wiped away but the taco man can do anything at all and walk away free. Rules for thee...
There are still plenty of "centrist" Democrats out there who still believe in norms and traditions, and are willing to work with the Orange Nostra for the sake of "bipartisanship."
Corruption and cowardice, that's how America dies.
I do not want to paint with a broad brush, but I think a narrow majority of Democratic senators and leaders are perfectly content to enjoy the perks of their office and not actually fight for anything but preserving the status quo.
That the status quo is unpopular with Democratic voters and many Americans hardly matters. They have theirs, fuck the rest of us.
And always remember, states' rights are only sacrosanct when trying to discriminate or make life worse for people. The ultimate Republican goal: Kill as many of us as possible with miasma, pestilence and famine. Also helps to have a 6-3 regressive court too.
I actually think a filibuster can be useful if it adhered to its original idea—that a minority, if big enough (say, more than 40%) could slow down legislation that needs to be further discussed. You can imagine a crisis which Congress reacts to with haste and poorly considered legislation, and wants to jam through on a party line vote. But if debate is extended for even a little while, the minority can bring attention to unintended consequences of the bill, and get necessary changes. Such a filibuster should (1) have a time limit (say 90 days), (2) apply to all legislation or confirmations, and (3) require actual floor debate about the bill, not just stall tactics.
What we have instead is an abomination. Filibusters only apply to certain legislation with no reasoning behind that (why should it matter if it is related to budgets?), they go indefinitely so they’re essentially a supermajority requirement rather than an extension of debate, and there’s no requirement to actually debate the bill. It is very stupid that Democrats did not make this reform when they had the chance, and you can be sure Republicans will do whatever they want when they’re running the show.
And with the ACA, there was actual serious debate. Many progressives complain about the lack of a public option or other concessions made that were necessary because Pelosi/Reid had to wrangle a coalition of Democrats with a broad range of ideologies (That's how you got a massive supermajority in the first place). However, they were committed to passing a bill, whereas Republicans just want to obstruct on general principle.
Exactly!
Why formally get rid of something when it's inconvenient if you can ignore it without consequences? Especially if you can use it when it's convenient, because Dems will let them if they ever get back in the majority, because of "norms" and "bipartisanship."
When rules are more important than the needs of the many, you are fighting for power, not people.
Yep.
Speaking of SCOTUS, it's like how Biden couldn't get student debt wiped away but the taco man can do anything at all and walk away free. Rules for thee...
There are still plenty of "centrist" Democrats out there who still believe in norms and traditions, and are willing to work with the Orange Nostra for the sake of "bipartisanship."
Corruption and cowardice, that's how America dies.