Eliminate the fillabuster and expand the Supreme Court plz. It should be one judge per circuit, and that's 13 now.
Also, the expansion of the House wouldn't be a bad thing. It was supposed to keep up with the population but was capped in the 20s.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2024
426 points (98.9% liked)
politics
19274 readers
1806 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Also add two more states plz.
Three more. Then we'll have 53, a prime number, and truly be one nation indivisible.
Guam. There's 53
Not sure about two but Washington D.C. should have statehood.
Puerto Rico?
We can recombine the Dakotas while we're at it, what a waste of money and time to have two.
Puerto Rico swings back and forth on wanting statehood. Guam?
Both north DC and south DC ;)
I would split east and west Texas first. Use the Trinity river as a natural divider.
The danger is once the filibuster is dropped, the GOP might go ahead and drop it again to undo the changes the next time they take power.
I'd say drop the filibuster first and go with the 127 DC states plan - https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review
That would give Dems the required supermajority not only in Senate and House, but also among States. So we can pass constitutional amendments to secure abortion, fix the Supreme Court, fix or abolish the Electoral College, and other things.
Afterwards, pass an amendment turning the 127 DC states into a single state, leaving aside the Capitol Area (the White House, Congress, etc would technically not be part of the new state but remain federal territory). In the same amendment, lock down the filibuster so if the GOP ever retakes power after this, they won't be able to use the same trick to undo these changes.
Which states? Iirc most Puerto Ricans don't want statehood.
The 2020 referendum in PR had a majority (52.5%) in favor of statehood. It's now simply waiting on Congress to accept.
Now, it is a small majority, and you could plausibly argue that the result would be different if taken again. This decision is also effectively permanent; states don't have the right to leave of their own accord. It seems like you should have a stronger majority than that for such a big decision.
As an outsider, I think their current status as a territory is completely untenable. Hell, we should never have kept them for more than a decade or so after the Spanish-American War. The case being what it is, it should be up to the people of PR to either become a state or become completely independent. The only referendum on the table says they become a state.
There is another referendum up for vote this November.
Interesting. When I was there in 2022, most of the people there I talked about it with basically like it the way it is, especially considering that many individuals are not liable for federal income taxes.
Lol which is why many like the way it is.
If you can have two Dakotas and two Carolinas…
Let Central Jersey name the two new states: East Dakota and New Dakota
She did stop short of promises simple majorities would translate to getting the votes to do it, and I'm glad they're being more realistic this time.
But she needs to actually use the bully pulpit if we have the majority but the votes still aren't there.
If there's some Dems who don't support this, then they need to be named and shamed so they either fold to peer pressure or their voters know they need replaced in the next primary.
We can't keep hiding who these Dems are by avoiding the vote. Make them go on record for not supporting the party platform
The old blue dog dems that held up the ACA until it was neutered and who opposed other progress when they were rhe deciding vote had no issue with the publicity. There werre recent discussions about getting rid of the filibuster and Dems were openly opposed to it.
So feel free to name and shame, they don't care.
You say that, but Sanders went to WV and talked to Manchins voters, and got him to support the party platform more than once.
You don't just use the bully pulpit from the White House to address the whole nation.
You pick it up and go to the voters and tell them the person they voted for isn't just holding them back. They're holding the whole country back.
That works. And it works a lot better when it's the president doing it than a random senator from another state.
Yes, pressure is great. I was just poiting out that nobody is hiding when it comes to the filibuster.
I think I agree with you, but this is phrased a bit weird across your comments. Normally there are chosen “detractors”, a-la Manchin/Sinema. It’s their job to kill this stuff and constantly be the scapegoat, and they get special deals as a reward.
However, if the chosen ones can’t or won’t fulfill this role, there are always corpo establishment dems ready to step in and kill meaningful legislation (ie, your blue dog Dems comment above.) They don’t openly advocate for doing this though, and do prefer to hide behind the scapegoats instead.
In those examples Manchin wasn't "hiding" before that either.
But going to his state and talking directly to his voters still got him to change position and support the party.
Manchin is not the best example perhaps, considering that he left the party in the end as an independent and then gave up seeking reelection.
Agreed. But I wonder if the President is enough - surely having the VP and former Presidents in addition wouldn't hurt?
It’s more than name and shame that is required. Just doing that will enable the media to dull the impact and sweep it under the rug at the next 24 hour news cycle, nobody will hardly know.
What is needed for these corrupt politicians to come around is to go to their home districts and campaign loudly against them, and in favor of legislation which will help the voting working class. This will force them to play nice, or cost them their seats if done correctly.
Not just Harris - but we should have folks stumping for her on these policies too. Like Obama, Biden, Waltz, AOC, Sanders, and whoever else.
How about just abolishing it entirely?
Fuck the filibuster.
In its current form, anyway. I don't really have a problem with it if it's employed in its original intended method, i.e. the senator in question actually has to keep talking and cannot yield the floor for the entirety of the amount of time he wants to block something. And preferably, we put him in TV in real-time while he's doing it. Under very bright lights.
The way it works now where anyone can just say, "We declare filibuster" serves no purpose other than to allow whoever is in the minority (but let's not kid ourselves, usually Republicans) to infinitely block anything forever without consequences, which is prima facie undemocratic.
We already have two houses and the presidential veto handy to kill legislation. We don't need another obstruction tool.
Is there really any logical reason why one voter should be allowed to block the entire process like that? The whole filibuster concept is the strangest part of US politics to me.
Functionally, there really isn't. The only reason it still exists at all is because "tradition."
I could see how it would be an affordable way to attention to a problematic bill (if it was still done as @[email protected] stated).
I don't follow what you are saying when that's what would have to happen to do this?
In 2022, she's also said she supports removing the filibuster to get voting rights acts and other things through as well
Republicans got rid of the fulibuster for only judicial nominations so they could stack the courts after years of using the filibuster to deny Dem nominations. It isn't an all or nothing thing.
The wording of getting rid of the filibuster for abortion was previously floated as a one time exception and then keeping around for everything else. This sounded like the same thing, just ending it for the one topic, not ending it in general.
Yes, however, doing it for one type of legislation is opening the same flood gates as any legislation. Given that she's historically called the filibusted archaic and not something she wants in the way of voting rights as well. I don't see her wanting it removed narrowly
This would be the typical Dem strategy - extremely targeted so as not to accidentally open the floodgates for additional impactful legislation to get passed. Just barely enough to campaign on for the next election cycle.
But hey, I’ll take a smidgeon of hope for something more.
It's also the most likely way of getting a bill passed without requiring a Senate super majority. The Grand obstructionist party doesn't want to lose their one move when they don't have presidential veto for general so it's probably going to take a super majority to break up the 30+ year long gridlock since the last amendment was passed, but if you target specific usages and committee procedures you can try to turn the conservative representatives who were personally affected by the law.
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support