The way it would improve things, especially without a filibuster, is that popular legislation cannot be removed simply because a party has eked out a slight majority.
The way things are, legislation is very unstable, with slim margins in both houses, we are looking at everytime there is a bit of a swing, for the party that just came into power to undo everything the previous party did.
If there is a bit of a hurdle, if removing a bill requires as much support as it had in being passed, that would add some stability to our legislative process.
I just don’t see that the problem we’ve had has been that legislation has been too easy to repeal. Quite the opposite, from my perspective. The Republicans talked for years about how they wanted to repeal ObamaCare, and when they finally had unified control, McCain defected and stopped it.
What legislation has been repealed that you think was too easy to do? For that matter, what legislation has been repealed at all in the last couple of decades? Congress undoing something isn’t how things have changed generally, at least IMHO. It’s usually EO’s, or SCOTUS rulings.
It does matter, because McConnell said that the Senate won’t hold a vote on anything that Trump won’t sign. So it’s a Catch 22: nobody knows what Trump supports; and there can’t be a vote unless Trump supports it.
How can you do that? You just quoted all the reasons it’s not the Democrats fault. They did the compromising. They’ve done all they can. Most Republicans also compromised, so they are not at fault. The Trump-supporting Republicans and Trump himself refuse to accept the compromise, saying my way or the highway.
That is always the person who is responsible. The person who refuses to accept the compromise. That was why Republicans were to blame before, and it is why Trumpian Republicans are to blame now.
It is not good for anyone to support Trump and take an untennable interpretation that makes it not his fault. He said he would accept a compromise. He got one. He didn’t accept it. Therefore he is at fault.
Not only did he refuse the compromise, but he also lied. The liar in negotiation is always the one at fault.
There is no factual evaluation of this that makes it the Democrats fault, nor the fault of most Republicans.
They could hand a DACA/CHIP bill with the meager promise to discuss the Wall seriously at some future date and Trump might sign it and claim credit for leading the way. There isn’t much to gain from reasoning about what an unreasonable person might do. Shit or go blind, paint my butt blue or move to the country. Decisions, decisions…
If the ACA had required 60 votes to defeat, then the republicans wouldn’t have been trying to repeal it the moment they managed to win a bare majority. That they couldn’t get enough of their own party behind the repeal isn’t relevant.
More to the point, though, such a system would encourage bipartisanship more in the first place. If you can get your bill passed by 50+the vp against the desires of the opposing party, then the moment they get north of 50%, they are going to try to repeal it. If it requires as many votes to repeal as it gets when it is passed, then that would encourage legislators to get more than the minimum amount of support required to get it passed the finish line.
Can someone help shine some light on something that is confusing me? McConnell is complaining that the D’s are playing politics on not voting for the temporary spending bill:
However, it appears he is one of the 5 R's that also voted against it:
I’m sure I’m looking at something wrong or the wrong vote tally. Can someone help clear this up?
There is a parliamentary mechanism by which if he votes as he would otherwise like to vote, and loses, then the matter is settled and cannot be revived in its current form. However, if he votes “No” against his preferences, that leaves it more or less open. I do not pretend to understand. We nurture pedants, one will be along shortly,
Paragraph 1 states that when a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may move a reconsideration. This may occur on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session. If the Senate refuses to reconsider such a motion, if a motion is withdrawn by leave of the Senate, or if upon reconsideration the Senate shall affirm its first decision, no further motion to reconsider shall be in order unless by unanimous consent. Every motion to reconsider shall be decided by a majority vote, and may be laid on the table without affecting the question in reference to which the same is made, which shall be a final disposition of the motion.
The majority leader wants to be on the prevailing side so he can move for a reconsideration. Full disclosure: I only know this because someone posted it in the Pit Thread.
To offer an explanation for why you haven’t heard much complaining about “feminazis” lately. Feminism is kind of down and out by the look of things.
Sure, that’d be nice. In general, I’d like a smaller and less intrusive federal government, so if there are things the Dems want to repeal, I don’t want to throw up additional roadblocks to that either.
You posted this exactly one year after an estimated four million feminists went to rallies around the US. It is probably the largest protest in American history.
Also, after a year when women ran for everything under the sun in record numbers. IIRC, there’s 11 more women in the Virginia House of Delegates (100 members) than there were last year: the Dems picked up 15 seats, and 11 of the successful challengers were women.
And of course, 2017 was just the appetizer. Women are running for Congress and state legislatures and everything down to county councils and school boards in record numbers all across the country, and that’s going to change the look of quite a few legislatures and elected boards nationwide.
And there’s this business about a bunch of men in various fields finding their careers abruptly interrupted because they’d been harassing women for years.
2017 was more aptly a Year of the Woman than any of the previous such years in my lifetime. And 2018 and 2019 will likely be even more so than 2017. Like the song says, sisters are doin’ it for themselves.
Yeah right. I’ll bet you’d be opposed to a repeal of the new tax law, for instance.
You show a decided bent toward the autocratic, as long as you have control. But just wait till it’s the Dems in power, and I can practically guarantee your tune will change.
Yeah, I don’t want my taxes to go up. OTOH, I’m not suggesting we add additional hurdles to make it more difficult to repeal.
Perhaps. Like I said the other day: politics makes hypocrites of us all. I do try to be consistent, but I’m almost certainly not perfect at it. Neither are you, I suspect.
Definitely not – a clean CHIP should have been voted on months ago, and still could and should be. It’s totally nonsense (and wrong and harmful to the country) to tie CHIP, which both parties support, to continuing to fund the government. CHIP should be totally separate. The only reason it’s not separate is so Republicans can use it as a hostage.
CHIP is out of money because no bill was brought up to fund it. No bill was brought up to fund it because McConnell and Ryan decide what bills hit the floor. They turned it into a bargaining tool in order to try to put one over on the opposition, and it’s starting to blow up in their faces.