Repugs get to be bullies, and Dems can quake in their 'boots,' 'Oh NO, we couldn't change this, what if they could do it to us.'

the best excuse for getting NOTHING DONE !

and getting paid for it.

-Laelth

IIRC, Dems could have changed the whole rule back when they only changed it for nominees.

No pressure from anybody to actually do the right thing. Just another fucked up kabuki dance.

Whether they know exactly how and by whom and how often is not clear to me.

....they can rile their base and disillusion all others....

The legislature isn't solving the PROBLEMS in the country. It's maddening.

although there are some Dems who would also fit the bill.

She's worthless.

Wyoming with half a million people gets 2 US Senators........ while California with 25 million also gets 2 senators.

I would say the red states have ten times the representation in the senate than the more populous blue states.

You are right about the inequities.

And BTW California now has over 37 million people. It is just shy of being equal to two New York states, or three Illinois'.

Or 148 South Dakotas!

Just like corporations. Only we can't blame that one on Scalia. It was our vaunted Framers.

The Founders understood that true democracy would be a tyranny of the majority. While they aspired to the concept of democratic rule the actual government they established, with purpose, is far from democratic.

If you recall Senators were elected by the state legislatures until adopt of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. The fact the House is apportioned by population but the Senate is allocated two to each state further betrays any expectation the Founders were crafting a "democratic" form of government. They were crafting a representative form of government.

The Founders gave each house broad powers to make their own chamber rules. Article I, Section 5 states "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

The origins of the filibuster are debated. Some scholars suggest the concept happened almost by mistake as a result of Vice President Aaron Burr in 1805. Whether that is the case or not it has been part of Senate history ever since.

In concept, if the Senate is far from being democratic (2 from each state regardless of population), why the concern about protecting minority interests? Well the very structure of the Senate suggests there was a concern that if both houses were apportioned based on population you would quickly deny smaller states a say in the governing of the nation.

So while I agree with you and wish we could get more things done more quickly, the Senate has been for some time less than democratic. Unfortunately with the current crew of Republicans the filibuster has been used to block all but the most mundane legislation.

All elections, which we value so much, and consider the essence of "our system," are based on the so-called tyranny of the majority.

If someone has to be tyrannized, isn't better it be the minority of Americans and not the majority?

Note: This is about sheer numerical minority, not racial, ethnic, religious or similar minorities, whom no one should "tyrannize."

We have allowed the majority (the voters) to deny a minority (LGBT persons) their rights.

It is the same in a political system. If you totally alienate a minority you create the situation you have in Iraq where the majority are not including the minority in governing. The result there is sectarian violence.

If you don't give minorities a voice you will eventually create resentment and worse.

I am all for majority rule but accept the Founders were very smart men, smarter than anyone in this country today I would suggest, and think they were wise to devise a system that provided for protections for minorities.

But as I pointed out in my post, the filibuster was NOT something the Founders created or likely envisioned. It came later.

Last edited Fri Mar 7, 2014, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

The Founders did not protect that kind of minority at all. Or women.

They protected white male landowners who had the money to pay poll taxes for the privilege of voting. And land where no people at all lived got the same kind of protection as a crowded city. Many of them were slave owners and slave rapists. And they sure never gave equal marriage rights.

You want to tell me how smart they were? I agree. You want to tell me how fair and egalitarian and protective of minorities they were? You are seriously mistaken.


ETA: No one is suggesting to deny the minority any voice. They get disproportionately greater voice now in the Senate (two Senators per state, plus the filibuster) and in Presidential elections. I am suggesting simply equal representation of people, not land. One person, one vote, not one acre, one vote. One person, one vote is the essence of fair representation.

I know the filibuster is not in the Constitution; and that is good, because changing a Senate rule is far easier than changing a Constitutional provision; and it should be changed.

The country should be about the people, not about whether Republicans or Democrats are protected, even if hardly anyone voted for them. If the Senate minority gets resentful, let them present better policies and better behavior to the voters and they will become the majority. As one party and the other gives the people better policies to regain the majority, everyone wins.

which have a thing to do with eliminating the filibuster or giving every human equal political political power and representation, whether they live in a populous state or a place with a lot of land on which no one resides.

Who determines which ones those are? Which are worthy of protection minorities and which are not?

have struggled with that issue for centuries and continue to do so. Wish with all my being that I had a glib reply, but I don't.


Who gets protected and who decides?

Who decides: The Constitution, the SCOTUS (by telling us what the Constitution "really" meant to say), Congress and state legislatures and, on a human level, you and me. So, everyone, with the possible exception of those claiming discrimination. That exception is extremely unfortunate, but i don't know what to do about it.

Who gets protected?

Whoever all of the above say gets protected. (I don't mean to be flip. If you want me to elaborate on this point, I will be glad to. I am assuming you already know.)


Obviously, nothing protects or can protect anyone against personal bigotry that technically violates no law. However, historically, when laws cease to discriminate, the populace begins to follow suit. Or at least to be more careful and shut their ugly, bigoted mouths in public.

It's an imperfect and slow process. Soon, minorities will become the majority, if they haven't already. If they can stick together, it would be great for them. If not, privilege is likely to continue where it is, with (one hopes) at least incremental improvements.

But, I thought I was replying to a post that stated that allowing a state with a population of (hypothetically) 1000 the same number of Senators as a state with a population of (also hypothetically) protects the (numerical) minority from the "tyranny" of the (numerical) majority.

No matter how many Senators you do or don't give Wyoming or New York, that is not going to ensure equal rights for racial, ethnic, religious or orientation minorities or women.

No matter how many Senators you give any state, that is not going to enable any minority to outvote anyone in any state.

All you are going to do is give a small number of people as much representation in the Senate as a larger number of people because of land and lines on a map. (In my experience, that argument usually comes most strongly from the right because the less populous states tend to be red. Same folk who don't want to see Presidential elections go to a popular vote or give up the filibuster, all of which I see as decidedly undemocratic, small d.)

Anyway, I guess I am missing the connection between what I would consider two separate issues.

If you're from a blue district or state you get votes by promising to do progressive things -- but you get the money by not doing them.

They can then say, we need you help to do this or that...send us money so we can fight the bad guys for you...I know I get the emails all the time.

While money gets you votes, getting elected lactually requires only votes.

That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the latter part of that sentence has probably been the main reason the 99% has goten a few good things every now and again.

At least one day every year or two, voters are royalty. We need to focus on making better use of our reigns.

It is a shame. A disgrace. Democrats should shun it. Fuck it. It's undemocratic. If the violent 45 would like to stand up and say why they were against such a bill, they should do so, vocally, for as long as it takes. Fuck the virtual filibuster. It is a shame, a disgrace.

No other way to view them. They are 100% cowards.

They don't want to have to actually get off their fucking asses and filibuster day in and day out on an issue they care about. So they invented this virtual filibuster. Actually, Reid is responsible, he put in the parallel filibuster, so shit could get done, and they could literally filibuster while going on some other agenda, but it's bullshit. Total bullshit. Do it. Get shit done in order as it is done.

To do otherwise is cowardice. Efficiency is anti-democratic. Democracy is inefficient, it sucks, it takes time to get shit done. Get it done the way the constitution asks. Stop fucking around. Stop the virtual filibuster.

and I'm curious as to your thinking on it.

Perhaps Reid always votes with the Democratic majority, rather than voting as he'd personally like to. This would make him sort of a neutral party, allowing him to get more done.

He sometimes flip-flops wildly, but otherwise seems principled, e.g., he's the only "official" Democratic leader who consistently calls Social Security cuts what they truly are, and refuses to consider them. An "always votes with the majority" rule might explain his actions.

I know that you study politics closely - does this make any sense?

WHY would the Senate Democrats elect a milquetoast Senator with a reputation for fumbling under pressure,
who is from a Conservative State and MUST worry about not appearing TOO Democrat in order to get re-elected... Why would our Senate Democrats elect, re-elect, and re-elect him again as their Spokesman and Leader?

Why not elect a fire breathing True Blue Democrat from a safe Blue State who doesn't have to worry about looking like a Democrat to his constituency back home to STAND UP and be the Spokesman for the Democratic Party in our Senate?


Why?
...because our Senate Democrats WANT it that way.
Reid given them ALL cover for non-performance.

Of the leading Senate Democrats. And before you complain about 12th dimensional chess, look at how he released Boehner's emails, called out Romney's lack of paying taxes for 10 years, plays with the nuclear option when expedient, and unlike most Dems, he doesn't scurry back his comments when he makes them, such as his "Republicans are addicted to Koch" moment, etc.

Note: I used the first hit on google for these.

He's the majority leader. There were some people confused why he voted against a recent nomination, it was to keep it still tabled, if he voted for it, then it would've been shot down because it didn't have enough votes, etc.

The fucked up part is that we need leaders that don't lead that way. Look at the Senate scorecards. Most of the "mushy middle" are seriously conservative on the rankings. They don't actually advocate for progressive legislation, they just sit around doing nothing, going with the flow.

Reid is probably somewhat of a liberal, he's a guy who calls out Koch connections straight to the Republicans face, so you got to hand him that. But this sort of analysis doesn't mean much. Obama ideologically is probably a die hard liberal, I have huge doubts that Obama advocates a lot of the crap he does so publicly. He was probably, personally, for marriage, marijuana, etc, before the polls came around and he said it.

This is the kind of shitty leadership we don't need. Sadly Hillary is the same. I only hope she holds some grudges and goes on the attack if she gets in office.

Employees of the 1% who call the shots.

It's really obvious.

I feel the Democrats let it stand because they know they are in the minority at some points too.

"Elections have consequences". Maybe pumping the brakes on occasion when the opposition too boldly makes a mockery of the system like Harriet Meyers or when they go with someone comic book evil like Robert Bork but outside the jaw droppingly absurd pretty much anything goes as evidenced by the Supreme Court where the left equivalent of Alito or even fake swing vote Kennedy is a laughable proposition even with generational majority numbers.

can be changed on a simple majority vote.