What are Your Thoughts on Democrats Calling Supreme Court Illegitimate, and State AG’s Vowing not to Enforce Abortion Bans? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

It's not that only one side tries it, it's that one side has been more successful with it.    It's not incorrect to point out what RC said that those things lean R now, so kicking it to the states is not as simple as "go out and vote for it".   What would be the last repubilcan president we would have had if it was just going off what we vote for - Bush Sr? 

Beyond that, while both sides are very cynical when it comes to the use of the filibuster, there is an unpleasant racial element to the actions of Republicans in southern states. Louisiana being the latest example of this. 

 

[BladeRunner]

On the flip side, would you and others complain if that was happening?  

We've been complaining about it for years. 

Democrats only complain about it when it backfires in their face.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Harry Reid approves because it worked out so well the last time.

I still find it funny that Democrats always float this idea as if they will be in power forever.  We told you guys the last time that doing something like this would bit you in the ###.  Has Roe v Wade not taught you anything?

This is a fair point.  

What if we decided today that the filibuster will permanently go away at the start of the 2028 congress?  We don't know who the president will be then, and we don't know who'll control the senate.  Or the house for that matter.  

 

[timschochet]

Harry Reid approves because it worked out so well the last time.

I still find it funny that Democrats always float this idea as if they will be in power forever.  We told you guys the last time that doing something like this would bit you in the ###.  Has Roe v Wade not taught you anything?

The damage is done. 
I’m not going to quibble with you as to who started it, whether it was Reid or McConnell or others. The important thing is the system is broken so this becomes a legitimate means try and fix it IMO. I’m opposed to packing the court. That’s a bridge too far. But ending the filibuster over this issue seems reasonable, at least to me. 

 

[BladeRunner]

This is a fair point.  

What if we decided today that the filibuster will permanently go away at the start of the 2028 congress?  We don't know who the president will be then, and we don't know who'll control the senate.  Or the house for that matter.  

Great idea.  I'm guessing we're going to get a firm "No" from those who want to remove it now.

Just a guess, though. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

It was one of the main reasons I would not vote for Obama- I thought he was too partisan. 

Partisan, or liberal?  I don’t think Obama voted against Roberts for partisan reasons. 

 

[BladeRunner]

The damage is done. 
I’m not going to quibble with you as to who started it, whether it was Reid or McConnell or others. The important thing is the system is broken so this becomes a legitimate means try and fix it IMO. I’m opposed to packing the court. That’s a bridge too far. But ending the filibuster over this issue seems reasonable, at least to me. 

I like you, Tim, but this post makes you seem like a petulant child who wants what he wants NOW because it will get him what he wants NOW.

This is why we don't put children in control of things, either.  No thinking of the big picture or future consequences.  They also don't learn from history, either.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This is a fair point.  

What if we decided today that the filibuster will permanently go away at the start of the 2028 congress?  We don't know who the president will be then, and we don't know who'll control the senate.  Or the house for that matter.  

Why wouldn’t we do it now if it’s the right thing to do? 

 

[timschochet]

Why wouldn’t we do it now if it’s the right thing to do? 

Because that would be petulant and childish. 

 

[timschochet]

@IvanKaramazov’s proposal is fine and good for a theoretical discussion but in real life it’s never going to happen. The only way the filibuster ends is when one side ends it. At which point the other side will ##### and moan and promise retribution. 

And let’s not pretend that once Republicans get control again they won’t seek to end the filibuster and make abortion illegal in all 50 states. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Why wouldn’t we do it now if it’s the right thing to do? 

Because it's NOT the right thing to do.  Harry Reid thought it was the right thing to do and now here you are, complaining about it because it backfired on you.

Have you guys not learned anything? 

 

[timschochet]

I like you, Tim, but this post makes you seem like a petulant child who wants what he wants NOW because it will get him what he wants NOW.

This is why we don't put children in control of things, either.  No thinking of the big picture or future consequences.  They also don't learn from history, either.

Many women are going to die if abortion is banned in some states: 

https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2021/09/22/study-shows-abortion-ban-may-lead-21-increase-pregnancy-related-deaths

So no I’m not willing to wait. If that makes me petulant and childish, so be it. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Because that would be petulant and childish. 

You certainly sound that way. 

You really think your demand ISN'T coming off that way?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why wouldn’t we do it now if it’s the right thing to do? 

I wouldn't mind doing it now.  

I'm just saying that there's a good argument for making process changes on a delayed basis.  Any change to any process that makes it easier (or harder) for a majority to get its way is always going to be viewed, fairly or unfairly, as politically motivated by whoever would benefit from that change right this minute.  It's easier to persuade people that you're making a good faith argument in favor of legislative reform -- not just running a short-term power grab -- if you're willing to have your change kick in at a later date when your side may or may not be in power.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I mean, obviously guys like TGZ and tim are just little kids who are failing the marshmallow test.  I do think the filibuster has outlived its usefulness though.  

 

[BladeRunner]

I mean, obviously guys like TGZ and tim are just little kids who are failing the marshmallow test.  I do think the filibuster has outlived its usefulness though.  

Why?

 

[Rich Conway]

Oh, GTHO with that.  You want to take a look at some of the Democrats gerrymandered districts?

Don't act all pious and imply that this is only a Republican thing.

It is a fact that Republicans have recently lost the popular vote for POTUS yet claimed the electoral college win twice.

It is a fact that over the last three Senate cycles (i.e. six years, covering all 100 seats), Democrats have absolutely crushed Republicans in total votes, yet the Senate is split 50/50.

It is a fact that Democratic representation in the House is significantly lower than the total percentage of votes Democrats received in the House elections.

As I wrote, we can debate whether that is good or bad, but these things are happening.  It is a fact that, today, Republican votes count more than Democratic votes.

To your point, would Democrats take advantage of these same structural considerations if they could?  Of course they would.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I wouldn't mind doing it now.  

I'm just saying that there's a good argument for making process changes on a delayed basis.  Any change to any process that makes it easier (or harder) for a majority to get its way is always going to be viewed, fairly or unfairly, as politically motivated by whoever would benefit from that change right this minute.  It's easier to persuade people that you're making a good faith argument in favor of legislative reform -- not just running a short-term power grab -- if you're willing to have your change kick in at a later date when your side may or may not be in power.

I agree in concept. 

I don’t believe Republicans at this current moment in time are acting in good faith. I think deep down, you agree. I’m having a hard time understanding why my side should be so concerned with de escalation at a time when I don’t believe the other side is even operating in good faith.  

 

[BladeRunner]

It is a fact that Republicans have recently lost the popular vote for POTUS yet claimed the electoral college win twice.

It is a fact that over the last three Senate cycles (i.e. six years, covering all 100 seats), Democrats have absolutely crushed Republicans in total votes, yet the Senate is split 50/50.

It is a fact that Democratic representation in the House is significantly lower than the total percentage of votes Democrats received in the House elections.

As I wrote, we can debate whether that is good or bad, but these things are happening.  It is a fact that, today, Republican votes count more than Democratic votes.

To your point, would Democrats take advantage of these same structural considerations if they could?  Of course they would.

How is the Senate and POTUS affected by gerrymandering?

 

[Rich Conway]

Let's be clear hear:  Guys like @Rich Conway are only complaining because the GOP is beating the DNC at it's own game.  He's not upset about gerrymandering - he's upset that his side isn't doing it better.

He wouldn't be complaining if the DNC was "winning" at it.

No, you're wrong about this.  I'm against it regardless of who does it.

 

[timschochet]

I agree in concept. 

I don’t believe Republicans at this current moment in time are acting in good faith. I think deep down, you agree. I’m having a hard time understanding why my side should be so concerned with de escalation at a time when I don’t believe the other side is even operating in good faith.  

Because like me, you failed the marshmallow test. 

 

[BladeRunner]

No, you're wrong about this.  I'm against it regardless of who does it.

I stand corrected. 

However, the only time we ever hear anything about gerrymandering being a problem is when the side that's not doing a better job at it is complaining about it.

 

[The Commish]

Genuine Question Alert!!!!!!

What happens in states where one law says X is illegal and then another law says it's ok?  I assume this gets resolved in court?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why?

This is always going a judgement call, but I think we've tilted slightly too far in the anti-majoritarian direction.

We all understand that the design of any government involves making a tradeoff between majority rule and minority rights.  Nobody wants to live under a government where 50.01% of the electorate gets to dictate every facet of life to the other 49.99%.  But on the other hand, the government needs to be able to govern, so there needs to be a viable way for legislative majorities to enact laws.

In our system, we have a whole bunch of features that make life hard for majorities.  First, we have a BOR that takes entire topics off the table for democratic deliberation -- no majority can ever declare Christianity to be the state religion, for example.  More mundanely, it's not enough to have a simple legislative majority.  You need a majority in two different chambers, which are elected differently and which operate differently.  And the president can veto stuff that he doesn't like.  And courts can strike laws down if they run afoul of some provision or another.  Life is already pretty challenging for majorities, and they're already operating with one hand tied behind their back.

That's all fine IMO.

The filibuster goes too far because it effectively turns the senate into an institution that simply can't do anything.  Consider the Build Back Better Act.  I get that this might not be the type of legislation that you or I would support, but it wasn't especially radical.  It seemed like the kind of thing that a Democratic president with a Democratic house and Democratic senate should have been able to pass.  When a party controls the presidency and both chambers of congress and still can't get ordinary legislation across the finish line because on chamber decided that it won't do anything without a 60% majority, this seems like bad government design.

 

[Rich Conway]

How is the Senate and POTUS affected by gerrymandering?

They aren't.  That's why I wrote "gerrymandering and structural considerations".  "Considerations" isn't the best word, but I didn't want to use "issues" as that implies a negative connation that I didn't want, and quite frankly, I couldn't think of a better word without negative connotations.

As an aside, you would do better to read what people actually write without immediately trying to ascribe partisan or negative motives.  In this particular case, I was very careful to state "X is happening" and immediately follow it with "X isn't necessarily bad", yet you jumped in whole hog with "you're being partisan, you hate X!"

 

[BladeRunner]

This is always going a judgement call, but I think we've tilted slightly too far in the anti-majoritarian direction.

We all understand that the design of any government involves making a tradeoff between majority rule and minority rights.  Nobody wants to live under a government where 50.01% of the electorate gets to dictate every facet of life to the other 49.99%.  But on the other hand, the government needs to be able to govern, so there needs to be a viable way for legislative majorities to enact laws.

In our system, we have a whole bunch of features that make life hard for majorities.  First, we have a BOR that takes entire topics off the table for democratic deliberation -- no majority can ever declare Christianity to be the state religion, for example.  More mundanely, it's not enough to have a simple legislative majority.  You need a majority in two different chambers, which are elected differently and which operate differently.  And the president can veto stuff that he doesn't like.  And courts can strike laws down if they run afoul of some provision or another.  Life is already pretty challenging for majorities, and they're already operating with one hand tied behind their back.

That's all fine IMO.

The filibuster goes too far because it effectively turns the senate into an institution that simply can't do anything.  Consider the Build Back Better Act.  I get that this might not be the type of legislation that you or I would support, but it wasn't especially radical.  It seemed like the kind of thing that a Democratic president with a Democratic house and Democratic senate should have been able to pass.  When a party controls the presidency and both chambers of congress and still can't get ordinary legislation across the finish line because on chamber decided that it won't do anything without a 60% majority, this seems like bad government design.

Thanks, Ivan. I think you may have changed mind mind on this.

I vote that we get rid of the Filibuster in 2024, on the election of a new President. 

 

[timschochet]

This is always going a judgement call, but I think we've tilted slightly too far in the anti-majoritarian direction.

We all understand that the design of any government involves making a tradeoff between majority rule and minority rights.  Nobody wants to live under a government where 50.01% of the electorate gets to dictate every facet of life to the other 49.99%.  But on the other hand, the government needs to be able to govern, so there needs to be a viable way for legislative majorities to enact laws.

In our system, we have a whole bunch of features that make life hard for majorities.  First, we have a BOR that takes entire topics off the table for democratic deliberation -- no majority can ever declare Christianity to be the state religion, for example.  More mundanely, it's not enough to have a simple legislative majority.  You need a majority in two different chambers, which are elected differently and which operate differently.  And the president can veto stuff that he doesn't like.  And courts can strike laws down if they run afoul of some provision or another.  Life is already pretty challenging for majorities, and they're already operating with one hand tied behind their back.

That's all fine IMO.

The filibuster goes too far because it effectively turns the senate into an institution that simply can't do anything.  Consider the Build Back Better Act.  I get that this might not be the type of legislation that you or I would support, but it wasn't especially radical.  It seemed like the kind of thing that a Democratic president with a Democratic house and Democratic senate should have been able to pass.  When a party controls the presidency and both chambers of congress and still can't get ordinary legislation across the finish line because on chamber decided that it won't do anything without a 60% majority, this seems like bad government design.

I like this reasoning, and obviously I’m now willing to apply it to abortion. 
 

But as I wrote I am uncomfortable with anything that ends tradition and established order. There’s been so much of this lately and it feels me with unease. 

 

[BladeRunner]

They aren't.  That's why I wrote "gerrymandering and structural considerations".  "Considerations" isn't the best word, but I didn't want to use "issues" as that implies a negative connation that I didn't want, and quite frankly, I couldn't think of a better word without negative connotations.

As an aside, you would do better to read what people actually write without immediately trying to ascribe partisan or negative motives.  In this particular case, I was very careful to state "X is happening" and immediately follow it with "X isn't necessarily bad", yet you jumped in whole hog with "you're being partisan, you hate X!"

Thanks for the clarification. 

Also, I do have to be better about that stuff.  I try, but it's hard.  I get too reactionary to the hyperbole and drama from other posters (not you) and that colors my response and thinking in subsequent posts.

Thanks for reminding me that I have work to do to improve.  

 

[jm192]

This isn’t just about Roe. And it doesn’t really matter how we got here. I have to say that the suggestion that this state of affairs is the result of democracy in action is amusing.
 

The fact is that now 6 folks do essentially have a magic wand to do as they please with our laws. I guess we’ll see how it plays out.

 

They don't have a magic wand to do as they please.  That's absolutely absurd.  

They literally cannot make laws.  Legislators make laws.  The justices decide if they're constitutional or not.  But they cannot wave their wand and say "abortion is illegal."  Legislators do that.  And they are elected.  

 

[jm192]

President Biden’s solution: get rid of the filibuster in order to codify the right to an abortion. 
 

I support this idea. It’s very unlikely that the Democrats will get a 60 vote majority any time soon. It’s also very unlikely that any Republican senators would actually agree to a compromise of 15-20 weeks. So this becomes the best option. Ending the filibuster fills me with unease because it’s a break from tradition, but both sides have already gone way too far down that path anyhow. 

There are two Democratic senators who will not agree to breaking the filibuster. Therefore in order for this to happen, Democrats need to gain 2 more seats in the Senate, and hold the House. That will be a tough challenge this year, but not impossible. 

It's nuclear.  What are they going to do the next time Republicans are the majority and want to enact something they don't like?  I'm sure someone will be arguing "we need to return to tradition and bring back the Filibuster."

 

[FairWarning]

Genuine Question Alert!!!!!!

What happens in states where one law says X is illegal and then another law says it's ok?  I assume this gets resolved in court?

Federal>State>local  is the quick and dirty way.  Do you have an example?

 

[timschochet]

It's nuclear.  What are they going to do the next time Republicans are the majority and want to enact something they don't like?  I'm sure someone will be arguing "we need to return to tradition and bring back the Filibuster."

I’m fairly confident that when Republicans are in power they will end the filibuster. Might as well beat them to the punch. 

 

[timschochet]

It's nuclear.  What are they going to do the next time Republicans are the majority and want to enact something they don't like?  I'm sure someone will be arguing "we need to return to tradition and bring back the Filibuster."

Also, ending Roe vs Wade with a 5-4 vote that was only made possible because McConnell broke with tradition by refusing to consider Garland and then slamming home Coney Barrett at the last second, THAT was nuclear. We’re already nuclear; it’s too late. 

 

[jm192]

Also, ending Roe vs Wade with a 5-4 vote that was only made possible because McConnell broke with tradition by refusing to consider Garland and then slamming home Coney Barrett at the last second, THAT was nuclear. We’re already nuclear; it’s too late. 

I think THAT was playing politics with in the system that was in place.  McConnel didn't rewrite the rules.  He played within them as written.

We love Democracy until it doesn't go our way.  Then we need to change it.

 

[John123]

This is always going a judgement call, but I think we've tilted slightly too far in the anti-majoritarian direction.

We all understand that the design of any government involves making a tradeoff between majority rule and minority rights.  Nobody wants to live under a government where 50.01% of the electorate gets to dictate every facet of life to the other 49.99%.  But on the other hand, the government needs to be able to govern, so there needs to be a viable way for legislative majorities to enact laws.

In our system, we have a whole bunch of features that make life hard for majorities.  First, we have a BOR that takes entire topics off the table for democratic deliberation -- no majority can ever declare Christianity to be the state religion, for example.  More mundanely, it's not enough to have a simple legislative majority.  You need a majority in two different chambers, which are elected differently and which operate differently.  And the president can veto stuff that he doesn't like.  And courts can strike laws down if they run afoul of some provision or another.  Life is already pretty challenging for majorities, and they're already operating with one hand tied behind their back.

That's all fine IMO.

The filibuster goes too far because it effectively turns the senate into an institution that simply can't do anything.  Consider the Build Back Better Act.  I get that this might not be the type of legislation that you or I would support, but it wasn't especially radical.  It seemed like the kind of thing that a Democratic president with a Democratic house and Democratic senate should have been able to pass.  When a party controls the presidency and both chambers of congress and still can't get ordinary legislation across the finish line because on chamber decided that it won't do anything without a 60% majority, this seems like bad government design.

These are fair points, and in a more sane time I would agree with you.  But we're not living in a sane time.  So, here is my reasoning for keeping it:

The founders purposely made legislation difficult to pass.  They understood that doing so would help ensure compromise and hopefully result in what's best for the country.  I'm in favor of that concept.

There was a time that, even within a party, you had a wide variety of opinions and voters weren't guaranteed even from your own party colleagues.  That is rarely the case now.  Candidates are so dependent on national party money that for the most part they toe the party line.  Other than the squad and the Manchin/Simena outliers everyone else just seems to vote in line with what they're told to do.  This has diluted one of the areas that helped ensure compromise.  And but for Manchin/Simena Biden and the Dems would have gotten everything they wanted, including BBB.

So, the more gridlock the better as far as I'm concerned.  The people in Washington, on BOTH sides, don't give a poop about what's best for the country and are running it in to the ground.  And that's without some of the extreme bills they'd like to pass.  So, give me MORE gridlock, not less.

 

[timschochet]

I think THAT was playing politics with in the system that was in place.  McConnel didn't rewrite the rules.  He played within them as written.

We love Democracy until it doesn't go our way.  Then we need to change it.

The filibuster isn’t a law. It’s a tradition. And it has nothing to do with democracy. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

I’m failing to see the insurrection part of the quotes you’ve offered. The only quote that strikes me as irresponsible is from Maxine Waters, and compared to many of her quotes over the last 30 years, it’s relatively mild. 

Yet she still holds office and keeps chugging along.

 

[Zow]

Partisan, or liberal?  I don’t think Obama voted against Roberts for partisan reasons. 

Did you read his explanation? 

I recall reading it in law school and concluding that he voted against solely for partisan reasons (he obviously didn't say it explicitly but that was my takeaway). 

I genuinely like Obama even though I disagreed with some of his policies, but he lost a lot of credibility with me when he voted against Roberts. 

 

[Westerberg]

This idea that because religious conservatives got this big, hard earned win means that the rest of us are just supposed roll over and take it for next few decades is hilarious.  

 

[timschochet]

These are fair points, and in a more sane time I would agree with you.  But we're not living in a sane time.  So, here is my reasoning for keeping it:

The founders purposely made legislation difficult to pass.  They understood that doing so would help ensure compromise and hopefully result in what's best for the country.  I'm in favor of that concept.

There was a time that, even within a party, you had a wide variety of opinions and voters weren't guaranteed even from your own party colleagues.  That is rarely the case now.  Candidates are so dependent on national party money that for the most part they toe the party line.  Other than the squad and the Manchin/Simena outliers everyone else just seems to vote in line with what they're told to do.  This has diluted one of the areas that helped ensure compromise.  And but for Manchin/Simena Biden and the Dems would have gotten everything they wanted, including BBB.

So, the more gridlock the better as far as I'm concerned.  The people in Washington, on BOTH sides, don't give a poop about what's best for the country and are running it in to the ground.  And that's without some of the extreme bills they'd like to pass.  So, give me MORE gridlock, not less.

Yeah except codifying the right to an abortion isn’t some extreme bill. It’s desired by the vast majority of Americans. 

 

[Zow]

Genuine Question Alert!!!!!!

What happens in states where one law says X is illegal and then another law says it's ok?  I assume this gets resolved in court?

Not really. 

I'll use a relatively recent example. For many years marijuana was decriminalized in CA but prosecuted as a felony in AZ. I represented plenty of Californians who had the displeasure of being advised that once they crossed a certain body of water they entered an entirely different world and are subject to the laws of the state they chose to enter. It sucks because some genuinely didn't know the stark difference in the laws, but states generally have the right to criminalize what they want* and difference of laws/ignorance of the laws is generally not a defense. 

*Obviously subject to constitutional limitations. 

 

[jm192]

Yeah except codifying the right to an abortion isn’t some extreme bill. It’s desired by the vast majority of Americans. 

If it's a "vast majority," then they just need to show up at the polls.  

 

[timschochet]

If it's a "vast majority," then they just need to show up at the polls.  

Hopefully they will. To get 50 senators who agree with them. But trying to get 60 is unlikely and unnecessary. 

 

[Zow]

I think THAT was playing politics with in the system that was in place.  McConnel didn't rewrite the rules.  He played within them as written.

We love Democracy until it doesn't go our way.  Then we need to change it.

Arguably so did the Houston Astros, Tom Brady with the Tuck Rule, the 1981 Australian cricket team (legally underarm rolling the pitch in horrible sportsmanlike fashion),  Brett Hull in the crease (legal at the time), etc.

Sometimes playing "within the rules" still doesn't make it right. 

 

[Coach Beard]

Historically speaking, the Senate filibuster isn’t some sort of sacred rule that was invoked regularly.  It didn’t really become “popular” until pro-segregationists used it over and over to try to block civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s, but from the WWI days until Nixon took office, the filibuster was only used about once a year.

The filibuster in its current form didn’t start to take shape until 1970.  That was when a filibuster no longer stopped all Senate business.  And then when a Senator no longer had to stay on the floor to keep the filibuster going, then it started getting used all the time.  

I get that Republicans are trained to believe this is all Harry Reid’s fault.  But it’s not like Reid woke up one day and decided judicial nominees should be exempt from the filibuster.  It was in response to Senate Republicans filibustering every Obama judicial nominee because eff you that’s why and doing so was clogging both Senate business and the court system.  Senate Republicans decided they would rather see two branches of government grind to a halt instead of letting a Democratic President appoint judges.  Something had to be done to get government running again.

I get the value of a filibuster when used sporadically and ethically.  But we’re way past expecting Senators of any affiliation to restrain themselves in such a manner. So if the choices are retaining the filibuster in its current form or dumping it altogether, we would be better off getting rid of it.  But I’d be interested in ideas for filibuster reform, like requiring being on the floor to invoke one and forcing 41 Senators to organize and be on record to make the block instead of putting the burden on the 60 trying to move forward, or tying filibuster power to percentage of population represented by the blocking Senators rather than straight votes.  

 

[The Commish]

Not really. 

I'll use a relatively recent example. For many years marijuana was decriminalized in CA but prosecuted as a felony in AZ. I represented plenty of Californians who had the displeasure of being advised that once they crossed a certain body of water they entered an entirely different world and are subject to the laws of the state they chose to enter. It sucks because some genuinely didn't know the stark difference in the laws, but states generally have the right to criminalize what they want* and difference of laws/ignorance of the laws is generally not a defense. 

*Obviously subject to constitutional limitations. 

Not sure this answers my question.  I'm not asking about different laws in different states.  I'm asking about two laws in direct conflict with each other in the SAME state.

 

[Rich Conway]

I think THAT was playing politics with in the system that was in place.  McConnel didn't rewrite the rules.  He played within them as written.

We love Democracy until it doesn't go our way.  Then we need to change it.

Wouldn't ending the filibuster be playing with the rules as written?  The current filibuster is really only tradition and can be, by the rules, ended with 51 votes.

Note that I'm not suggesting that Democrats should end the filibuster.  Just saying that doing so wouldn't be "rewriting the rules" any more than what McConnell did.

 

[The Commish]

Federal>State>local  is the quick and dirty way.  Do you have an example?

Let's say a state has a law that prohibits sex between people of the same sex on the books but also has a law that sex between people of the same sex is legit.

I'm not asking about jurisdictions competing with each other.  I'm asking about this in terms of the two laws being in the same jurisdiction.

 

[John123]

Hopefully they will. To get 50 senators who agree with them. But trying to get 60 is unlikely and unnecessary. 

If it's so popular getting 30 states to agree with you shouldn't be difficult.  If it is, maybe it's not as popular as you think.

 

[Rich Conway]

So, the more gridlock the better as far as I'm concerned.  The people in Washington, on BOTH sides, don't give a poop about what's best for the country and are running it in to the ground.  And that's without some of the extreme bills they'd like to pass.  So, give me MORE gridlock, not less.

Isn't there an argument that more gridlock leads to more executive orders and governance by fiat instead of legislation?