I don't really get the allegiance to the filibuster. It is unique to this country, I believe.
Why shouldn't the ruling party be allowed to pass the laws it wants to?
Since 60 votes are required to pass funding bills, killing the filibuster means 51 votes pass funding bills. Kill off a 60 vote requirement with 51 votes is idiotic math.
This social contagion memidemic has run its course and will soon fade into history. Except, unlike other playground crazes (yo-yos, jacks, hula-hoops, marbles) this one will never fade for those unfortunate children irreversibly damaged by chemical or even surgical mutilation
This is the rare occasion of Trump being wrong and the party standing up to *him*. Eliminating the filibuster here will end the shutdown, but it will also allow any party with a simple majority to pass any legislation they want. To put a finer point on this, consider what life would be like under President Mamdani.
To dig a little deeper, the GOP can't end the filibuster by itself. It needs 60 votes, which it doesn't have. It will get enough votes from democrats to pass if put to a vote, because they know that all they will have to do is wait until a democratic President is in office and controls both chambers of Congress to make any policy they want the law of the land.
I don't really get the allegiance to the filibuster. It is unique to this country, I believe.
Why shouldn't the ruling party be allowed to pass the laws it wants to? Why shouldn't a majority of the upper chamber rule? Sink or swim, baby.
The founding fathers certainly had no conception of the filibuster.
The claim that the Founding Fathers had no conception of the filibuster is not true. If you read Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate" (part three in his four volume biography of Lyndon Johnson), there is a passage where he talks about Founding Father George Washington's conviction that Congress should consist of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Washington explains that one chamber should act as a saucer does to coffee, to "cool" It. (If this doesn't make sense, you need to understand that saucers were invented so you can pour hot coffee into it, allowing it to cool, before you poured it back into the cup, not as cup holders or coasters, as they sre comminly used today).
Moreover, the Founding Father's understood both checks and balances, as well as the concept of "majority rule with minority rights." Both are encoded into our Constitution.
The filibuster keeps one party from ramming its agenda through. It also prevents the subsequently-elected party from undoing that agenda, by ramming its agenda through. It's an important part of American democracy.
When we have a national security emergency (fentanyl), the president can take more power.
I have never know a single person who takes fentanyl. Below is a map from Fox News which states have fentanyl testing strips and which don't. The "national security emergency" is in red states.
Yesterday I was flying home from the southwest, and I got to see first hand the chaos that has ensued with the FAA mandating flight cuts, as well asTSA and ATC not being paid, calling in sick, etc. ORD was a nightmare. On my long delays, over five hours with nothing else to do, I got to watch some news programs on the screens in the airport, stories on how millions are being cut from SNAP just before Thanksgiving, how the Trump administration went to the Supreme Court to basically argue for refusing aid so that people would go hungry, stories about working class people finding their health care premiums doubling or tripling. Looking around at the transportation chaos and everything else, I thought, is this what Making America Great Again looks like? Feels more like a banana republic to me.
I don't really get the allegiance to the filibuster. It is unique to this country, I believe.
Why shouldn't the ruling party be allowed to pass the laws it wants to? Why shouldn't a majority of the upper chamber rule? Sink or swim, baby.
The founding fathers certainly had no conception of the filibuster.
The claim that the Founding Fathers had no conception of the filibuster is not true. If you read Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate" (part three in his four volume biography of Lyndon Johnson), there is a passage where he talks about Founding Father George Washington's conviction that Congress should consist of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Washington explains that one chamber should act as a saucer does to coffee, to "cool" It. (If this doesn't make sense, you need to understand that saucers were invented so you can pour hot coffee into it, allowing it to cool, before you poured it back into the cup, not as cup holders or coasters, as they sre comminly used today).
Moreover, the Founding Father's understood both checks and balances, as well as the concept of "majority rule with minority rights." Both are encoded into our Constitution.
The filibuster keeps one party from ramming its agenda through. It also prevents the subsequently-elected party from undoing that agenda, by ramming its agenda through. It's an important part of American democracy.
the 'cooling' quality of the senate was indeed real and valid.
the means to make that happen were:
1/ the senators were to be unelected. Rather, they were to be selected by the state legislatures as wise old men who would make good decisions with education and a history. And not forced to appeal to the masses. That was the original constitution, before an amendment changed it.
2/ Six year terms so they weren't under much influence to change votes to keep their jobs, and create institutional stability.
The filibuster isn't needed to make the senate the 'cooling' place.
Although I suppose now that we have directly elected senators, the filibuster may be needed to replace that.
Yesterday I was flying home from the southwest, and I got to see first hand the chaos that has ensued with the FAA mandating flight cuts, as well asTSA and ATC not being paid, calling in sick, etc. ORD was a nightmare. On my long delays, over five hours with nothing else to do, I got to watch some news programs on the screens in the airport, stories on how millions are being cut from SNAP just before Thanksgiving, how the Trump administration went to the Supreme Court to basically argue for refusing aid so that people would go hungry, stories about working class people finding their health care premiums doubling or tripling. Looking around at the transportation chaos and everything else, I thought, is this what Making America Great Again looks like? Feels more like a banana republic to me.
The Schumer Shutdown has gone on for 39 days. Democrats can vote to reopen the govt at any time.
Since 1963, 75% of all nationwide injunctions have been against President Trump. 90% of those injunctions came from Democrat-appointed judges. Yet the Admin has a 92% win rate at SCOTUS. President Trump isn’t the one abusing his power. It’s Democrat-appointed judges.
The claim that the Founding Fathers had no conception of the filibuster is not true. If you read Robert Caro's "Master of the Senate" (part three in his four volume biography of Lyndon Johnson), there is a passage where he talks about Founding Father George Washington's conviction that Congress should consist of two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Washington explains that one chamber should act as a saucer does to coffee, to "cool" It. (If this doesn't make sense, you need to understand that saucers were invented so you can pour hot coffee into it, allowing it to cool, before you poured it back into the cup, not as cup holders or coasters, as they sre comminly used today).
Moreover, the Founding Father's understood both checks and balances, as well as the concept of "majority rule with minority rights." Both are encoded into our Constitution.
The filibuster keeps one party from ramming its agenda through. It also prevents the subsequently-elected party from undoing that agenda, by ramming its agenda through. It's an important part of American democracy.
the 'cooling' quality of the senate was indeed real and valid.
the means to make that happen were:
1/ the senators were to be unelected. Rather, they were to be selected by the state legislatures as wise old men who would make good decisions with education and a history. And not forced to appeal to the masses. That was the original constitution, before an amendment changed it.
2/ Six year terms so they weren't under much influence to change votes to keep their jobs, and create institutional stability.
The filibuster isn't needed to make the senate the 'cooling' place.
Although I suppose now that we have directly elected senators, the filibuster may be needed to replace that.
What is needed for the Senate to 'cool off' is 60 votes to pass important legislation, and not allow 51 votes to kill that. Also, 61 votes should not be allowed to kill of a 60 vote requirements. The 60% should never be lowered.
reminder that the "national emergency" in one case was Canada quoting Ronald Reagan.
And Greenland not giving their minerals away to Trump.
And Panama not giving the Panama Canal to Trump.
The list of snubs is endless.
We are MUCH more powerful than Denmark. As JD Vance said: “The president said we have to have Greenland…We cannot just ignore this place. We cannot just ignore the president’s desires.”
Since 1963, 75% of all nationwide injunctions have been against President Trump. 90% of those injunctions came from Democrat-appointed judges. Yet the Admin has a 92% win rate at SCOTUS. President Trump isn’t the one abusing his power. It’s Democrat-appointed judges.
An intelligent person would quickly surmise that a President having so many legal challenges is obviously doing lots of illegal stuff.
the 'cooling' quality of the senate was indeed real and valid.
the means to make that happen were:
1/ the senators were to be unelected. Rather, they were to be selected by the state legislatures as wise old men who would make good decisions with education and a history. And not forced to appeal to the masses. That was the original constitution, before an amendment changed it.
2/ Six year terms so they weren't under much influence to change votes to keep their jobs, and create institutional stability.
The filibuster isn't needed to make the senate the 'cooling' place.
Although I suppose now that we have directly elected senators, the filibuster may be needed to replace that.
What is needed for the Senate to 'cool off' is 60 votes to pass important legislation, and not allow 51 votes to kill that. Also, 61 votes should not be allowed to kill of a 60 vote requirements. The 60% should never be lowered.
ok
I'll ask you this: Other countries require a simple majority in the legislature to pass bills.
Why is it better to require 60%? Imagine you are a citizen of another nation looking at the US wondering why we don't trust our legislature to rule by simple majority.
