I have lost all faith in the Supreme Court to be a fair and impartial deciding factor in anything that affects the lives of everyday Americans. And those appointed by corrupt #45 are a disgrace to democracy, period.
What if Senator Schumer were to go ahead and call for a vote on Voting Rights legislation and Biden's "Build Back Better" and, when it passes by a simple majority, declare these matters passed and ready for the President's signature? Opponents could then challenge this, so that it would soon end up before the Supreme Court. As "originalists", they should be repudiating the filibuster rule. In this way, the legislation could finally get done. The Dems are sometimes too proper, too respectful of an opposition that does not respect them, and too reverential toward bad law!
Yesterday I had (a safe, at-home brown-bag) lunch with a retired colleague who is a distinguished Constitutional law scholar who writes about executive power and Supreme Court. Among our free ranging conversation topics was today's Court. I mentioned my own combined confusion, dismay, and disgust with 6 members' ignorance of 1) the Constitution; 2) major case law that I am aware of (I am not a lawyer or legal scholar); 3) U.S. history; and 4) everyday reality (eg., Coney Barrett on "women's progress'" and wonderful adoption system to explain a lack of need for abortion and women's (or anyone's) rights to control their bodies and their lives; others on equity and equality). I asked my friend: how the f**k can this possibly be?
He laughed and replied: "The Federalist Society" No need for common sense, legal, historical, or contemporary knowledge for these people, many of whom hold multiple Ivy League degrees (like Ted Cruz, josh Hawley (Ph.D. in US History from Yale : )), Ron DeSantis, and others). The Harvard Law grads like Cruz and DeSantis almost certainly had a course in critical race theory with Derrick Bell!
"Textualism" and "Originalism" are now (perhaps always?) ideologies not legitimate modes of analysis and interpretation.
We can change term limits, age limits, nomination requirements. But how can confront radical ideologies supplanting sense and knowledge?
Can the Federalist Society be designated a terrorist group by law?
I think it is clear that a minority party in Democracy should not have more voting power than the majority of the country. It is clearly unconstitutional and not Democratic. It's also not just or fair.
At every turn, I find myself exasperated that this is meant to be a majority rule liberal democracy when it has become a complete tyranny of the minority. If this country is going to be the majority rule country it was meant to be, the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the electoral college will all be eliminated. Adding 4 more seats to the Supreme Court is now necessary as well since this anti-majority court majority seems to think they can do whatever they want with no accountability. They are all anti-majoritarian instruments that have been used for that express purpose.
I’m sorry, but how can we call ourselves a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY when 41 senators represent 21% of the country? It’s absolutely absurd that this is currently how our country is constructed. 21% of the country is essentially ruling the other 79% when it’s meant to be the other way around. I don’t understand how we’ve gotten here. How this has been allowed to happen.
To me, so-called "originalism" and "textualism" are fancy-sounding code for "I have a lifetime appointment and zero accountability, so I can do whatever I want, ha ha." During the Obama presidency, there was a dispute about recess appointments, which are allowed by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In ruling against the president (of course), Antonin Scalia called that constitutional provision an anachronism. So much for originalism. Additionally, "unconstitutional overreach" is now code for "I don't like that law/policy." I have no respect for people who twist words and phrases and invent meaningless terms to rationalize the pursuit of their own personal predilections, people who use their degrees from some of our country's most elite institutions to cause harm.
As for Manchin's and Sinema's embrace of the filibuster, I think they are using that as an excuse to prevent legislation that their Big Money donors oppose.
My two U.S. senators are, unfortunately, very partisan Republicans who are perfectly fine with blocking voting rights legislation. But, with regard to bringing congressional issues to court, and particularly with Trump and others going to court to quash congressional subpoenas, I have been wondering, doesn't the Speech and Debate clause in Article I, Section 6, apply?
Excellent summary. I'm with Madison and Hamilton and I know that Benjamin Franklin would have some choice words about the 60-vote cloture requirement, if he were around today.
But there's a small and perhaps not all that significant point in the Constitution that's generally overlooked, but I feel it's important. That document establishes the Vice President as head of the Senate and gives that person the ability to be the tie-breaker should ties occur. Implicit in that statement is the assumption that ties are an equal number of votes on each side, and since a 60-40 vote isn't a tie vote, then the ability of the Vice President to break the tie is non-existent. I feel that this invalidates the entire argument for the existence of the filibuster, but of course I could be wrong.
I have shared this with both of my Senators imploring them to act and be the strength our country needs right now to protect the rights of all Americans to vote and save democracy itself. Sad to say it but we can't depend on a corporate bought Supreme Court to act in a manner beneficial to the people. Excellent article.
Maybe as originally written, it could be of some use, however how it now stands it it is a detriment to democracy and must be illuminated to make congress work again. Screw the Supreme Court, they do not have say over everything, only dictators have this privilege. Why are we discussing this? ,just get it done. If the Democrats fear the retaliation in the future, they better think twice, cause under these conditions their will be no future. Legislature dictated by one section of congress is wrong , never was meant to be, and never will be if this is stuck down
The filibuster is just an unethical, undemocratic, and probably unconstitional tactic of a minority attempting to get its way and thwart a majority. It is typically favored the a party not in power, but sometimes even senators of the party in power even favor the filibuster (Manchin, Sinema) for political reasons. I like your idea Robert to challenge the filibuster in the courts.
As a person who is active in many progressive causes, I am frequently invited to write to my senators. As a person currently stranded in the state of Florida, I generally feel that it is absolutely useless because progressive citizens have no one in power here that would be open to any of my opinions. I like to think of Florida as ruled by the "Triumverate of Genuine Idiocy" - Rubio, Scott and the ultimate nut job: Ron DeSantis. So, it's no wonder I constantly feel like my opinion doesn't matter and that writing to them is a fool's journey.
I have lost all faith in the Supreme Court to be a fair and impartial deciding factor in anything that affects the lives of everyday Americans. And those appointed by corrupt #45 are a disgrace to democracy, period.
What if Senator Schumer were to go ahead and call for a vote on Voting Rights legislation and Biden's "Build Back Better" and, when it passes by a simple majority, declare these matters passed and ready for the President's signature? Opponents could then challenge this, so that it would soon end up before the Supreme Court. As "originalists", they should be repudiating the filibuster rule. In this way, the legislation could finally get done. The Dems are sometimes too proper, too respectful of an opposition that does not respect them, and too reverential toward bad law!
Yesterday I had (a safe, at-home brown-bag) lunch with a retired colleague who is a distinguished Constitutional law scholar who writes about executive power and Supreme Court. Among our free ranging conversation topics was today's Court. I mentioned my own combined confusion, dismay, and disgust with 6 members' ignorance of 1) the Constitution; 2) major case law that I am aware of (I am not a lawyer or legal scholar); 3) U.S. history; and 4) everyday reality (eg., Coney Barrett on "women's progress'" and wonderful adoption system to explain a lack of need for abortion and women's (or anyone's) rights to control their bodies and their lives; others on equity and equality). I asked my friend: how the f**k can this possibly be?
He laughed and replied: "The Federalist Society" No need for common sense, legal, historical, or contemporary knowledge for these people, many of whom hold multiple Ivy League degrees (like Ted Cruz, josh Hawley (Ph.D. in US History from Yale : )), Ron DeSantis, and others). The Harvard Law grads like Cruz and DeSantis almost certainly had a course in critical race theory with Derrick Bell!
"Textualism" and "Originalism" are now (perhaps always?) ideologies not legitimate modes of analysis and interpretation.
We can change term limits, age limits, nomination requirements. But how can confront radical ideologies supplanting sense and knowledge?
Can the Federalist Society be designated a terrorist group by law?
I think it is clear that a minority party in Democracy should not have more voting power than the majority of the country. It is clearly unconstitutional and not Democratic. It's also not just or fair.
At every turn, I find myself exasperated that this is meant to be a majority rule liberal democracy when it has become a complete tyranny of the minority. If this country is going to be the majority rule country it was meant to be, the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the electoral college will all be eliminated. Adding 4 more seats to the Supreme Court is now necessary as well since this anti-majority court majority seems to think they can do whatever they want with no accountability. They are all anti-majoritarian instruments that have been used for that express purpose.
I’m sorry, but how can we call ourselves a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY when 41 senators represent 21% of the country? It’s absolutely absurd that this is currently how our country is constructed. 21% of the country is essentially ruling the other 79% when it’s meant to be the other way around. I don’t understand how we’ve gotten here. How this has been allowed to happen.
To me, so-called "originalism" and "textualism" are fancy-sounding code for "I have a lifetime appointment and zero accountability, so I can do whatever I want, ha ha." During the Obama presidency, there was a dispute about recess appointments, which are allowed by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In ruling against the president (of course), Antonin Scalia called that constitutional provision an anachronism. So much for originalism. Additionally, "unconstitutional overreach" is now code for "I don't like that law/policy." I have no respect for people who twist words and phrases and invent meaningless terms to rationalize the pursuit of their own personal predilections, people who use their degrees from some of our country's most elite institutions to cause harm.
As for Manchin's and Sinema's embrace of the filibuster, I think they are using that as an excuse to prevent legislation that their Big Money donors oppose.
My two U.S. senators are, unfortunately, very partisan Republicans who are perfectly fine with blocking voting rights legislation. But, with regard to bringing congressional issues to court, and particularly with Trump and others going to court to quash congressional subpoenas, I have been wondering, doesn't the Speech and Debate clause in Article I, Section 6, apply?
WONDERUL SUMMARY OF MINORIITY KILLING OF OUR DEMORCRACY
Excellent summary. I'm with Madison and Hamilton and I know that Benjamin Franklin would have some choice words about the 60-vote cloture requirement, if he were around today.
But there's a small and perhaps not all that significant point in the Constitution that's generally overlooked, but I feel it's important. That document establishes the Vice President as head of the Senate and gives that person the ability to be the tie-breaker should ties occur. Implicit in that statement is the assumption that ties are an equal number of votes on each side, and since a 60-40 vote isn't a tie vote, then the ability of the Vice President to break the tie is non-existent. I feel that this invalidates the entire argument for the existence of the filibuster, but of course I could be wrong.
I have shared this with both of my Senators imploring them to act and be the strength our country needs right now to protect the rights of all Americans to vote and save democracy itself. Sad to say it but we can't depend on a corporate bought Supreme Court to act in a manner beneficial to the people. Excellent article.
Federalist Society, for those who may not know the details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
Maybe as originally written, it could be of some use, however how it now stands it it is a detriment to democracy and must be illuminated to make congress work again. Screw the Supreme Court, they do not have say over everything, only dictators have this privilege. Why are we discussing this? ,just get it done. If the Democrats fear the retaliation in the future, they better think twice, cause under these conditions their will be no future. Legislature dictated by one section of congress is wrong , never was meant to be, and never will be if this is stuck down
Sherrod Brown now has this text in his inbox. Truth be told, with Brown it's a bit like preachin' to the choir - I believe.
Is anyone planning to take this before the Supreme Court? Maybe this should be done.
The filibuster is just an unethical, undemocratic, and probably unconstitional tactic of a minority attempting to get its way and thwart a majority. It is typically favored the a party not in power, but sometimes even senators of the party in power even favor the filibuster (Manchin, Sinema) for political reasons. I like your idea Robert to challenge the filibuster in the courts.
It would be interesting to see the true face of Supreme Court Justices on this issue! I am not optimistic!
Mitch McConnel and other Conservatives have been hypocritical in their politics in recent times. Once a hypocrite always a hypocrite.
But none of this can explain why the Democratic Senate does not change such rules!
As a person who is active in many progressive causes, I am frequently invited to write to my senators. As a person currently stranded in the state of Florida, I generally feel that it is absolutely useless because progressive citizens have no one in power here that would be open to any of my opinions. I like to think of Florida as ruled by the "Triumverate of Genuine Idiocy" - Rubio, Scott and the ultimate nut job: Ron DeSantis. So, it's no wonder I constantly feel like my opinion doesn't matter and that writing to them is a fool's journey.