327
Mitch McConnell shares GOP's ‘worst nightmare’ scenario of a Harris-Walz White House
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
327 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19080 readers
3125 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Flatly wrong about packing SCOTUS. It's probably a bad idea--as is ending the filibuster--but it's not unconstitutional.
As to why it's a bad idea - Republicans haven't increased the size of the court when they've held the legislature and presidency; packing the court would encourage them to do the same the next time they have power--and they will eventually, because that's the way politics have gone in this country--and we'd quickly end up with a court that's even more unwieldy than it is now.
The same principle applies to ending the filibuster; if it's ended now, then Dems can't use it when they are out of power in the Senate. Because, again, Republicans will win again at some point--possibly even this fall--and giving absolute power to a single party is a bad idea.
And that's how we keep scooting to the right.
People think there's a sense of fair play involved here and a dislike for hypocrisy, but it isn't the case. Look at what happened for appointments to the supreme Court under Obama vs trump as an example. I understand why you might feel this way considering that the nuclear option for ending cloture wasn't used by Republicans until Harry Reid did it, but 20 years later honor and decorum are no longer foundational to government.
Anymore, I think the best thing to do is use tools available to terrible effect, then with any luck all the "honor system" stuff can be written into law.
Bring back the talking filibuster, and pack the court to fix it's rules, ethics, and enforcement (the court doesn't even respect stare decisis anymore), add states, expand the cap on the house, blow the electoral college. No more gentlemen's agreements.
At least that's how I see it.
I'm absolutely fine with the talking filibuster; I love it, and think we should do it. Killing it entirely? No.
Packing the court? Also no. If anything, I think that the size should be reduced. I'd be fine with term limits on judges (say, 16 years), along with a code of ethics and mandatory financial disclosures and recusals for conflicts of interest. But packing the court is not a good idea.
I think that if we're ever going to get back to a point where we aren't hyperpartisan, we need to operate in good faith, even if the other side isn't. Constantly escalating ends up hurting us in the long run. And, again - as soon as you create the tools to get your way, those tools will be used against you; a hammer doesn't care which ideologue is swinging it.
Bad idea. Getting 400+ people to stop arguing long enough to vote on a thing is already hard enough. You'd just be adding more layers of bullshit.
Eh. Last I knew, PR didn't really want to be a state; I recall that under 50% of the island population wanted statehood. D.C. might, but I'm not sure that making a city a whole-ass state--particularly since most of the city is actually in Virginia and Maryland--is a good idea. That would have the effect of ensuring that voters in D.C. would be far more powerful than any other voters, since you would have a fairly small number of voters selecting two senators. (I can't find exact populatino data for D.C. alone; all population figures I can find are for metro D.C., which counts large parts of Virginia and Maryland; those voters already have representatives and senators.)
I oppose this for the same reason that I oppose getting rid of the Senate and going to a direct democracy; an electoral college balances the interests of the states as a whole against the population, because they're not always the same. An electoral system forces candidates to try and balance a message, rather than focusing solely on the most populous areas. Rather than eliminating the electoral college, I'd rather see some form of ranked-choice voting, which would tend to eliminate candidates that had the most extremely unpopular platforms. (E.g., Trump consistently won about 30% of the votes in the 2015 primaries, but a strong majority of voters would have selected him as their last choice. Some form of ranked choice in the Republican primaries likely would have resulted in a candidate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio instead of Trump.)
All of this is a balancing game of competing interests and priorities. Steamrolling people and hammering them isn't going to make anything better. Yes, I hear what you're saying about the Overton window, but frankly, that's a messaging problem that the left has created. If the right is able to move the Overton window, it's because the left is doing a really shitty job at meeting voters where they are, while the right is doing a damn good job at outreach.
DC has more people than Montana...they deserve senators, representatives and votes