Nice. Maddow has been harping on what a total cluster-fuck the Justice Dept is, and now Garland can finally go in there and start cleaning it up.
Thank god for Garland, although months late. Time to take out the trash.
I donât know. Iâm certainly no expert. I just look at recent events and think additional checks and balances canât be bad (but without the current obstructionist nonsense).
Alstein
1680
A minority powerless long enough will no longer be protected by the judiciary. Imagine what Trump could have done with friendlier courts.
That said, extraordinary times do require extraordinary measures, and we must crush the fascists or we lose.
And yeah, it really sucks we didnât get $2000 and the minimum wage, but we got a lot of good in this, and I do recognize that. Doesnât mean Iâm going to complain about the leftists being angry and continuing to push- the harder they push, the harder it will be for the Sinemas of the world to block progress.
Sharpe
1681
The problem is that any kind of âcheckâ is going to have the potential for obstruction and based on history, that potential is ALWAYS used, eventually. About the best we could do would be to allow the minority some ability to temporarily delay passage, of a limited number of bills, to essentially buy time for their counter-message, but anything stronger than that is going to result in obstruction.
My view remains that a robust court system of protection of minority rights is the superior framework, and is also what the Bill of Rights was about.
No system is perfect. And having a substantial size party committed to winning at all costs with no regard for principle, reality, or good faith, is an existential threat for any democracy. In the long run, breaking the power of the GOP and the right wing media machine is the only way back to a stable functioning democracy. In the interim, we should focus on procedures that both work and also reflect the intent and function of the Constitution, which is majority rule with protection of minority rights by the judiciary.
Just had to get rid of the anchor known as DJT.
In the long run we are all dead, as Keynes said. But seriously, whatâs the reason for thinking that one party will permanently be in the minority? I donât see that at all.
Agree. And again, most other democracies seem to get along fine without a supermajority legislation gatekeeper. In fact, they seem to get along better, when better is defined as winners of elections get to govern in accordance with constitutional norms and standards.
Alstein
1685
The next time the Republicans win, they will try to stop free elections completely.
How will they do that? And how would a filibuster rule stop them if they wanted to do that?
Alstein
1687
Theyâll probably abolish the filibuster to finish it.
Theyâll just pass laws and the courts will back them up even if unconstitutional. If that fails, theyâll rig and the courts will allow it.
Then I donât understand what your objection has to do with the question of whether we need the filibuster as a check on the power of the majority?
Cliche alert: elections matter.
Sharpe
1690
I donât think Alstein is opposing filibuster reform. I believe he is on one of his own tangents, a unique angle beyond the ken of mortal posters.
Timex
1691
I feel like if the minority has legitimately held views in opposition to the majorityâs plans, I think itâs ok for then to have a tool which will allow things down and draw public attention to the bill.
But thatâs what it needs to beâŚa tool to facilitate a process by which they can be heard.
It canât be what it is today, which is a tool that can be used by the minority party to simply STOP action by the majority party, indefinitely, with essentially zero effort on the part of the minority party.
Make them sit there for the entire duration of the filibuster. This guarantees that they canât do it forever. It puts a limit on the time. It also means that they have to actually care about it, not just rubber stamp some plan by a minority within their own party.
But it still gives the minority the ability to slow things down and pull a jimmy stewart, and draw attention to something they feel is wrong.
The fiction here is that they are not heard without the tool. Of course they are heard. There are hours, days of debate, allowing them to make floor speeches about what they want and donât want. There are multiple votes, allowing them to make their desires known.
What they mean by they want to be heard is they want the result to reflect their desire. Just as saying that Trumpâs 75 million voters just âwant to be heardâ really means âthey want to have wonâ, saying that the minority in the Senate âjust wants to be heardâ really means âthey want their views to prevailâ. Of course they do, but they lost and are in the minority and if they canât change the majorityâs mind, they lose.
OH NOES!
(Of course, the truth is that the well off get a benefit from an uptick in the economy just like everyone else, and this bill will do that.)
It was clearly the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 that allowed the 2008 Financial Crisis to happen. That broke down the wall between commercial banking and investment banking, which had kept the Wall Street types from screwing things up so badly for everyone else for over 70 years. But their lobbyists went whining to Congress and saying the investment bankers didnât have enough âflexibilityâ and that Londonâs financial biz was eating their lunch and why not get rid of this âoutdated law,â* hmm?
*Much like the former CSA states claimed about âoutdated provisionsâ of the VRA of 1965, by a strange coincidence, and before the ink was dry on the Shelby decision they got back up to their old tricks.
Heaven forefend that a good Republican should vote for anything that doesnât get the votes of the majority of the err⌠minority in this case.
On another topic and the 80k AGI cutoff for the stimulus, someone remind me-- AGI doesnât usually include income thatâs deducted for a 401k, right?
