…um, (a)Merrick(a) - hello?
It’s really up to Congress - and moderate Democrats, as a reminder, fuck the filibuster and fuck compromise. If you seriously believe in compromise with a party that auditions for the role of American Nazis, you don’t deserve freedom that they’ll readily take away.
Not sure if I’m misreading your post with those “you”'s not being royal ones.
New analysis on the GOP issue
…But their past words and actions suggest they are again prioritizing their own political advantage over defending democracy.
When former President Donald Trump lost last year’s election, most Republicans didn’t do what most losing parties do – agonize over how to modify their message and appeal to a majority to deliver them future power.
Instead, party leaders in Washington and the states dedicated themselves to enshrining his anti-democratic behavior as GOP orthodoxy and whitewashing events that led to Trump’s disgrace, including his pandemic failures, lies about non-existent major electoral fraud and the Capitol insurrection.
Instead of examining why voters rejected the ex-President after a single term, Republican state legislators drew up bills rooted in his falsehoods about a stolen election that could make it easier to install their preferred victor after future elections – even if voters decide otherwise… Claims of vast voter fraud in 2020 – which Republicans say justifies restrictive voting bills from Florida to Texas and Arizona to Michigan – are false. And past statements from GOP leaders, including Trump, that allowing more people to vote will make it harder for Republicans to ever win power reveals a more genuine rationale for GOP opposition.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, for instance, said on Fox News in November, while Trump was disputing the result of a free and fair election that made Joe Biden president, that “if Republicans don’t challenge and change the US election system, there’ll never be another Republican president elected again.”
Certainly true, but I wouldn’t call it “new.” It’s kind of what we’ve been saying around here all along.
The message doesn’t matter any more, and in fact, the Republicans don’t even have a message any more. They don’t have plans or policy, which they showed during the trumpy administration, by accomplishing exactly nothing. Well, nothing good.
The Senate will vote today on whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to debate on the For the People Act (i.e. the House-passed voting rights bill). The vote is necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster, and needs sixty ayes. The vote is certain to fail. Every Republican is going to vote no – this isn’t one of those votes where McConnell will give Collins and Murkowski a pass to vote against the caucus, he needs every Republican unified to show that the bill is a Democratic power grab.
In other news, Krysten Sinema has an op-ed in the Washington Post (paywall) this morning opposing eliminating the filibuster. Nice timing, Krysten.
Well, it is a democratic power grab.
And that’s a “small ‘d’” on purpose.
Sinema’s basic argument is that by making legislation by simple majority rule, we risk legislation being overturned whenever there’s a change in party control. We’ve had posters here argue much the same way.
That doesn’t scare me. I want voting to be a war of ideas.
State legislatures seem to be perfectly fine passing voting suppression laws by simple majority vote; where’s the outcry over the lack of bipartisanship in the statehouses? There is no filibustering in the state legislatures, so why should federal legislation be so handicapped? A change in party control doesn’t appear to be a concern at the state level; why should it be so at the national level?
You’ll have to ask Manchin and Sinema that. Theyr’e the ones who think bipartisanship is so important.
Unfortunately correct. I’m beginning to think that shouting into the void is my go-to hobby these days.
Sinema’s essay is one fallacious argument after another.
As you (Red Wiggler) say, she emphasizes the Horrible Possibility that if it’s possible to pass legislation with a simple majority instead of a supermajority, then (gasp!) in some future Congress, Republicans might pass bills that Democrats don’t like!
This is disingenuous for several reasons:
-
***her basic argument that the Senate should remain a place where no desired-by-Democrats bills pass because that will ensure that in the future no bills Dems dislike will pass is ridiculous. It requires an assumption that a new GOP majority will never change the filibuster so as to be able to pass what they want. How can that assumption possibly be legitimate?
-
***the ‘nothing should pass in the Senate’ argument is an argument for a Senate with no purpose. Gosh, Krysten, do you really think that’s good for your job security?
-
***the idea that a no-talking, 60-vote-supermajority filibuster promotes “bipartisanship” is ridiculous on its face. If a certain number of Democrats think that bipartisanship is the Ultimate Goal of their work as Senators, then why don’t they support a reform of the filibuster that might actually promote such? The current form–in which obstructionists pay NO price for mere obstructionism–is not doing thing one to promote chummy relations between the parties.
Paraphrasing the points made by Trae Crowder on Sinema’s op-ed (minus the profanity and the southern accent):
- Planning for the inevitability of a future defeat is typically Democrat defeatism.
- Don’t worry about pissing off the Republicans; they’re already pissed off. That’s their default state.
- Saying that we can’t pass laws now because they might get un-done in the future is ignoring the responsibility of a lawmaker – making laws.
- Fear that Republicans might un-do good Democratic laws is unwarranted. Republicans aren’t particularly good at that … witness their futile 10-year effort at repealing Obamacare. (Plus – it assumes that the Republicans control both houses and the White House)
- But if the Republicans insist on undoing good Democratic laws: Call their bluff. Make them sack up and own it. Make them be known as the party that repealed voting rights legislation, etc.
Besides which, the Republicans already pass laws they want with 50 votes.
IMO another major flaw in Sinema’s logic is that in the present moment, politics is dominated by supposedly temporary measures.
The biggest ways policy changes happen nowadays is through executive action and through budget reconciliation. These are designed to be things that ping-pong back and forth. And yet the situation we’re already in is that policies enacted as a result are in this gray zone where they’re sort of temporary and sort of permanent and no one actually knows until there’s either a court battle or a midnight lawmaking session.
It’s a bit of an extreme example, but DACA, on its face nothing but an enforcement priority is a policy that makes no sense if it ping-pongs between administrations. It’s survived Trump due to a combination of Trump’s incompetence and the court system at least on some level wanting it to be treated as a permanent policy. I agree with the goals of DACA but I agree with Republicans that executive action is a fraught way of implementing it. I think if I was Obama I would have done what he did for lack of a better option, but the risk is massive.
And many budget reconciliations for a few reasons have massive policy changes such as subsidizing COBRA or massive changes in the tax code that sunset. This winds up not actually being truly temporary policy changes - it tends to result in fiscal cliff-type battles that are even more of a mess.
If legislative gridlock continues we aren’t going to get into a situation where politicians stop using loopholes to sneak policies through and we aren’t going to prevent the status quo of building a house of cards on top of policies that are either extremely easy to seesaw back or completely unknown whether they’re reversible. The politicians who are the most aggressive about enacting their agenda are not magically going to go away at this point, they’re just going to continue pushing the limits until something gives.
Sinema is white, and made a white argument for defending the filibuster. She defended tradition, institutions, constitutions that have worked…for white (some) people. I don’t think Sinema is a bad person; she’s an unintentional racist. Maybe racist isn’t the right word - more like ‘priviligest’
Ahem, that’s my job here.
Not to worry. I’m not planning on competing professionally. I’m an amateur void-shouter.
A months-long Republican investigation into Michigan’s 2020 election uncovered no evidence of widespread fraud and concluded Wednesday with a recommendation the attorney general investigate those who made false claims for “personal gain.”
The 35-page report prepared by Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, dives deep to debunk conspiracy theories perpetuated by former President Donald Trump and some of his supporters in the wake of the Michigan election, which Democratic President Joe Biden won by 154,188 votes…
I would say that his conclusion is logical.