Consider other statehoods if they are interested (Guam, USVI, and possibly others like Marianas Islands and American Samoa) Too small. The largest has a Pop of 165K. RI has a cool Million, DC 700K. So, DC isnt a big stretch but Guam is right out.
What about inserting a cigar into an interns snooch?
Folks blather on about democracy on these boards yet seem to adhere to an extremely undemocratic idea. Limiting who can run for office after the already established standards flies in the face of the concept of “for the people, of the people, by the people”.
So what? If they want to be states make them states. If McConnell and co thought they’d bring 2 more GOP Senators, there’s no doubt they’d try and make them states. We should play the same game. The Senate is an undemocratic institution, rigged towards the GOP – this is one way to help tilt it back. Tilt it enough, and maybe the GOP would be open to a Constitutional amendment that would make it a fair and democratic (small d) institution (smallest states get 1 Senator, and largest states get 4, or something like that).
You don’t stop another person like Trump becoming president again by tailoring new requirements for eligibility. You have to change the conditions that allow it. Chiefly, the Electoral College and a, frankly, gullible electorate.
Making Election Day a federal holiday is one of the recommendations of the Carter Commission. It’s about ensuring that people have an opportunity to vote, not mandating it. Although I admire Australia’s mandatory voting law.
As for the OP. The first thing Democrats do is laugh in the face of the first Republican who whines about breaking institutional norms.
And you actually believe that McTurtle wouldn’t abolish the filibuster in a minute if it suited him. The guy who announced the doctrine of no SCOTUS appointments in the final year of a term and abandoned it the first time it suited him to? That guy?
And the Republican party that could once work with the Dems for the good of the country? That ship sailed, captained by Gingrich until McConnell took over.
If ACA is abolished, simply institute Medicare for all. If Medicare is abolished (don’t you think that’s possible? ACB has stated that she cannot take into account the real world effect of her decisions; she can only follow the law), rebalance the court. Massive infrastructure including bringing all dams and bridges up to scratch, 5G, modernizing the electricity grid; put back all the environmental regulations Trump has abolished (and is actively abolishing according to a story in today’s Times).
Getting rid of the filibuster is primordial. Nothing will get done without it. It looks like the Republican party has written off Trump and is now maneuvering to render Biden’s term a total disaster, including a massive recession that will make 2008 look like a Sunday school picnic. After ignoring deficits for four years (not to mention 8 of Bush), it will suddenly become the most important thing in the world.
All that stuff that Republicans insist should be legislated instead of sending it to SCOTUS… start legislating that stuff. Specifically the weaker parts of ACA, and also Roe v. Wade.
Offer every US territory a choice between statehood and independence. There should be nowhere on American soil where the people who live there can’t choose their leaders.
Go full-bore after every act of corruption by every Trump and their collaborators/enablers. Set up an investigative commission, fund it for 10 years.
Finally, if we have the brute force to do stuff just because we can, Republican-style, then let’s redress their abuses. Impeach Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Judge Amy, and add 8 flaming liberal justices. Then pass a Constitutional amendment to fix the temporary expansion, and make it more difficult and undesirable to ram through lifetime partisan appointees. The states can ratify it if they want reform, or we can just have liberal justices for the next thousand years.
Also get rid of daylight savings time, abolish leap years/seconds/days , abolish the American system of measures in favor of metric, and adopt the Hanke-Henry permanent calendar.
Huh? Why? Do you really want to see Julian-style calendar drift again?
It didn’t run out. It was voted down by SCOTUS.
How do we ensure that a new voting rights act doesn’t also get removed by a partisan court?
Can it?
So many things change, but I do remember back in the early 10’s that people thought that we should nuke the filibuster, as that would be the only way to update the ACA and to also make any other progressive legislation.
My understanding at the time was that it would have to be done at the beginning of the session, but not in the middle of it.
I remember frustration when the Republicans had indicated that they wouldn’t abuse the filibuster, so that it would not get nuked, and then they did anyway after it was too late to do anything about it.
That is nice, but I disagree. Again, even making it a Federal Holiday doesnt guarantee a day off, especially for those who need the help the most- underpaid hourly workers.
But here is what they said: Election Day Holiday
NCFER recommends that Election Day be made a national holiday. Specifically, NCFER recommends that in even-numbered years, the Veterans Day national holiday be held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November and double as Election Day. A national holiday would allow use of more polling places that are accessible to disabled voters. Currently, many accessible public buildings, such as schools, are unavailable for election use. While some skeptics believe voters would spend the day engaged in activities other than voting, NCFER believes the benefits would outweigh drawbacks. Among benefits would also be greater availability of poll workers. Localities could recruit and hire better trained poll workers, including federal, state, and local government employees who are experienced in dealing with the public and have knowledge of relevant civil rights laws.
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/elecref/ch3.htm
Note that they concur that “some voters would spend the day engaged in activities other than voting” but they said "the benefits would outweigh drawbacks. ". Maybe so, but it is by no means a given this would increase voting. A study needs to be made, perhaps a trial run.
If that’s all you found in my post to quibble about, great 
But yeah, I don’t think calendar drift matters anymore if everybody uses the same calendar. What does it really matter if the harvest comes in February instead of October? You still have the same hours of daylight.
That’s my hijack, won’t be continuing it further.
A Biden administration with Dem control of houses needs a major two-track program (with emphasis on both tracks):
-
All the usual forward-looking liberal-ish, progressive-ish stuff that we need and would normally be doing, quite aside from repairing all the depredations of Trump and the Republicans, AND
-
Major repair work to fix the damage done by Republicans over the past years (going back even as far as the Clinton administration), especially the Trump damage.
Biden and Congress should focus their time and efforts mainly on the forward-looking stuff. Biden should appoint some kind of fix-it commission to look into the Trump repair work we need. The commission could do much of the groundwork, identifying the work needed, developing proposed legislation and signature-ready executive orders, so Biden doesn’t need to be too bogged down with it.
No, SCOTUS didnt agree to extend it. Different.
Yes, they can and the GOp did:Fact check: GOP ended Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees
In 2017, McConnell and Republicans lowered the threshold for nominees to the Supreme Court, too
By 2017, roles had reversed — Republicans held the majority in the Senate, and President Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office.
After Senate Democrats, now in the minority, filibustered the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch — Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court — McConnell engineered his own “nuclear option.”
The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to reduce the vote threshold for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court from 60 to 51…]
It only takes a simple majority to end the Filibuster. The Dems did it once, the GOP also did it, both times for types of Court Nominations.
It is up to congress to extend it, not SCOTUS. It was extended by 25 years in 2006 by congress.
But in Shelby v Holder, they shot down part of it, and in effect invalidated most of the rest.
But that was for nominations, not for legislation.
Those words were written long ago by people that couldn’t conceive of life and politics today. There was NO mass communication by corporations that pander to the fears and hatred of a vast number - millions - of potential voters. I may be wrong, but the idea of dissolving our Constitution and becoming a dictatorship (or at least a monarchy) was unconscionable until recently.
If Trump were to be re-elected, we would be well along down that road.
As I said upthread, it wouldn’t take a very much smarter person than Trump to completely dump the Constitution and turn America into a dictatorship with a “King For Life.”
As long as we have corporations that pander to the fears and hatred of a vast number - millions - of potential voters, then the possibility of dictatorship exists.
Trump and his intellectually disabled fans have pointed the way.
To me, the question is whether America and the American Constitution is to be protected and sustained. If not, then 51% of the electorate can put the worst dictator in history into office.
If America and the American Constitution is to be protected and sustained, then I think we are obligated to somehow MAKE SURE that someone like Trump is never president.
I think America and the American Constitution can and should be protected from tin-pot dictators like Trump, but we can no longer rely on good faith and honor to do that. That was fine in the past when honor and good faith was far more prevalent. Now we need a more modern guarantee.
That is true, they only got rid of the Filibuster for Nominations. But they can do it for anything. The senate fixes it’s own rules, the rules change by a simple majority. They have changed the filibuster rules several times.
How about allowing filibuster but with restrictions and limitations? One idea might be that either party is allowed only some fixed, maximum number of filibusters per 2-year term. Each party must use its allotted filibusters wisely, saving them only for the cases they think most urgent, lest they run out.
But Trump wasn’t elected due to a failure to be properly vetted – everyone knew who and what he was. And tens of millions of American saw his complete lack of political experience as a virtue. You disagree – so do I. Emphatically so! But it’s not our place to tell others that they may not consider a candidate for office unless he or she has held some other public office. Coming up with reasons to exclude the “wrong kind of candidate” from the ballot is what Putin or Xi do to create a veneer of democracy without risking an actual opposition forming.
So, the filibuster means nothing, as it can simply be removed at any time if it is being abused.
And I’m still wondering about what you meant by the voting rights act not being renewed by SCOTUS.