The Filibuster

[togor]

Is in fact already dead. The idea was....60 votes to end debate. Simple majority to pass, except veto overrides.

The majority leader simply need not allow debate to come to the floor on something with 51 votes but not 60. That's what McConnell does today. And on the stuff that must pass (eg spending bills) the Filibuster is not allowed.

Otherwise the GOP has no interest in passing laws, which is why it exists zombie-like in the Senate rules.

[blackhawknj]

Then there of us who think we have too many laws, that are too complicated -"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."And there are many laws that should be repealed.

[togor]

Then there of us who think we have too many laws, that are too complicated -"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."And there are many laws that should be repealed.

Repealing laws requires the same machinery as passing them. It's all marching, just in a different direction. Very different than trying to use unelected judges to repeal the ACA instead of passing a replacement or outright repeal. Or...Trump's incredible health plan that is ready to go any day now (triple LOL on that).

[Vern Humphrey]

Then there of us who think we have too many laws, that are too complicated -"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."And there are many laws that should be repealed.

Every law should have in its heading a statement of where such a law is authorized by the Constitution. It should include a statement of the law's purpose, in measurable terms and a means of collecting data to see if it has met it's purpose. No law that does not meet its intended purpose should remain in effect for more than 5 years.

[togor]

Every law should have in its heading a statement of where such a law is authorized by the Constitution. It should include a statement of the law's purpose, in measurable terms and a means of collecting data to see if it has met it's purpose. No law that does not meet its intended purpose should remain in effect for more than 5 years.

That's ridiculous.

[lyman]

That's ridiculous.

why?



and tell us why you dislike any of the top choices for SCOTUS

[togor]

Think about it.

Congress can write sunset language into any law they like, and sometimes they do.

But a law with no expiration is obviously more durable than a law that has one. Given that the Constitution doesn't require it, people would go away from it to maximize the win of getting that law passed.

"Respecting the rules of the game?" Give me a break. The pious positions on letting the voters decide re: SCOTUS in 2016 did not survive one presidential election cycle.

As for the short list, I know nothing about them. But I do wonder in general if Trump judges will change their tune on the joys of executive primacy when the executive in question is a Democrat. That is a tremendously fair question and we may learn the answer soon.

Partially related I believe the conservative media will start caring about Covid-19 deaths and what the Federal Government is doing about it on 20 January, if Biden wins. In other words they'll start caring about Covid-19 the way they did Ebola.

[Roadkingtrax]

It helped the 1994 AWB.

[togor]

It helped the 1994 AWB.

That was a trade-off that allowed it to pass.