5 ms·

DC statehood passed the House last year, though nobody expected it to pass a Republican-controlled Senate. I think especially now that we've seen confusion abou

by geofft 6y ago

DC statehood passed the House last year, though nobody expected it to pass a Republican-controlled Senate. I think especially now that we've seen confusion about the chain of command of the DC National Guard, I'd bet that DC gets statehood before Puerto Rico. (The bill proposes that a small federal district - basically just the contiguous territory of the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, and other federal buildings - be carved out of DC and become the actual capital, and the remainder of DC become a new state.)

pm90 6y ago
Yeah, and I wonder if enough Republicans could be persuaded to get a filibuster proof majority. In any case I do believe the filibuster should be eliminated if Republicans obstruct just for the sake of obstruction.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lightgreen 6y ago
  > In any case I do believe the filibuster should be eliminated if Republicans That is very dangerous reasoning. Filibuster should be kept or eliminated regardless of political preferences and current majority in congress. If the system starts get adjusted too easily for the needs of current majority, it might be beneficial in short term, but in the long term it will shatter the democracy: what is the point of having election laws if any of them can be changed by those who are in power now. This is the same reason why the court should not be packed: it might seem be the fair thing for the current democratic majority, but it will damage the system credibility. This is the same reason why gerrymandering need to be fixed.
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    The Republicans killed the Filibuster in the Amy Coney Barrett nomination I thought, and multiple others. I remember the Democrats threatening court packing and DC/PR statehood with the merest of advantages. And now they have it. Which means the Democrats will probably reinstate the filibuster out of collegiality or some other insane reason. The Democrats are averse to winning.
    - jwond 6y ago
      The Republicans killed the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in 2017 after the Democrats killed the filibuster for all other judicial nominations in 2013.
      - pm90 6y ago
        Which they did because of unprecedented Republican obstruction in judicial confirmation.
  - pm90 6y ago
    This argument is repeatedly made and it doesn't really hold. You don't preserve Democracy by making it difficult to Govern. When politicians are elected, they should be given the opportunity to actually govern on the agenda they ran on. Otherwise, elections becomes completely meaningless as everyone knows that meaningful change can never be implemented no matter what. I would argue that is more dangerous to democracy. The modern world evolves rapidly and a country needs a Government that's able to respond effectively to those changes. The argument that an elected majority, elected by free and fair elections, should not be able to implement the platform they ran on seems fundamentally anti-democratic in itself. What prevents an elected majority from consolidating power? Well, that's why we have 3 different branches of the Federal Government, and staggered election to bicameral Congress.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      > When politicians are elected, they should be given the opportunity to actually govern on the agenda they ran on. That is a reasonable argument against filibuster. I may agree with it or disagree, I don't know where I stand. But the argument "because Republicans" should not be acceptable. > The argument that an elected majority, elected by free and fair elections, should not be able to implement the platform they ran on seems fundamentally anti-democratic in itself. It is more complicated than that. In the real world the democratic system should also protect against "tyranny of the majority". Many checks and balances exists in particular to avoid that tyranny, not just three branches you mentioned. Again, I'm not saying filibuster is good or bad.
      - pm90 6y ago
        > But the argument "because Republicans" should not be acceptable. It should be acceptable. I am not sure what perspective you are making that statement from. I am coming at it by looking at the actions of Senate Republicans for the past decade. We absolutely must judge parties by what they do. A party that exists simply for the sake of obstruction, while claiming lies as its policy platform during elections, must be called out as such: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/news/2016/07/14/141210/mitch-mcconnell-a-legacy-of-obstruction/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/news/2016/07/... > In the real world the democratic system should also protect against "tyranny of the majority". Many checks and balances exists in particular to avoid that tyranny, not just three branches you mentioned. They haven't really succeeded in doing that, if you look at American history. The majority in the US has always behaved in a tyrannical fashion, making it difficult or impossible for the minority to succeed. This happened first with the Protestant majority, then the White majority. When it couldn't do so explicitly, it did so via implicit structures that enforced this. So the argument of filibuster as a check against the "tyranny of the majority" also doesn't really hold, through experience. Its also a fundamentally racist structure: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/senate-filibuster-monument-white-supremacy/613579/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/senate-fil...
  - geofft 6y ago
    You cut off half the sentence to call its reasoning dangerous, and you are misunderstanding it. The reason is not "The filibuster should be eliminated because Republicans use it, and I don't like Republicans." The reason is "The filibuster should be eliminated because it's possible for one political party to abuse it, and moreover, that has happened." That reason may be based on facts or not, or convincing or not, but it is an argument that is not based on personal dislike of one party, except insofar as one party is doing something that would be bad if any party did it, and you are prepared to dislike any party that does it. If I said "Gerrymandering is bad because Republicans have used it to their advantage," I would be agreeing with your argument about gerrymandering, because both of us would be prepared to say the same thing about any other party were that party to use gerrymandering to their advantage.
jcfields 6y ago
If we're separating the federal district, why not just give the rest of it back to Maryland the same way the area on the other side of the Potomac was given back to Virginia?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  I think that was floated at one point and MD didn't want it back.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    Nor does DC want to join MD.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Sure, that’s a political problem with the idea, but MD not wanting DC is a Constitutional problem.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- xref 6y ago
  Both DC and Maryland could vote on that as an alternative to statehood, but remember they were separated 230 years ago so simply forcing a reunion on the populations of both locations seems suboptimal
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  It's perfect except that neither DC nor Maryland want that.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Which is exactly why we should do it anyway.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by geofft 6y ago

pm90 6y ago

Yeah, and I wonder if enough Republicans could be persuaded to get a filibuster proof majority. In any case I do believe the filibuster should be eliminated if Republicans obstruct just for the sake of obstruction.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lightgreen 6y ago
> In any case I do believe the filibuster should be eliminated if Republicans That is very dangerous reasoning. Filibuster should be kept or eliminated regardless of political preferences and current majority in congress. If the system starts get adjusted too easily for the needs of current majority, it might be beneficial in short term, but in the long term it will shatter the democracy: what is the point of having election laws if any of them can be changed by those who are in power now. This is the same reason why the court should not be packed: it might seem be the fair thing for the current democratic majority, but it will damage the system credibility. This is the same reason why gerrymandering need to be fixed.
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  The Republicans killed the Filibuster in the Amy Coney Barrett nomination I thought, and multiple others. I remember the Democrats threatening court packing and DC/PR statehood with the merest of advantages. And now they have it. Which means the Democrats will probably reinstate the filibuster out of collegiality or some other insane reason. The Democrats are averse to winning.
  - jwond 6y ago
    The Republicans killed the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in 2017 after the Democrats killed the filibuster for all other judicial nominations in 2013.
    - pm90 6y ago
      Which they did because of unprecedented Republican obstruction in judicial confirmation.
- pm90 6y ago
  This argument is repeatedly made and it doesn't really hold. You don't preserve Democracy by making it difficult to Govern. When politicians are elected, they should be given the opportunity to actually govern on the agenda they ran on. Otherwise, elections becomes completely meaningless as everyone knows that meaningful change can never be implemented no matter what. I would argue that is more dangerous to democracy. The modern world evolves rapidly and a country needs a Government that's able to respond effectively to those changes. The argument that an elected majority, elected by free and fair elections, should not be able to implement the platform they ran on seems fundamentally anti-democratic in itself. What prevents an elected majority from consolidating power? Well, that's why we have 3 different branches of the Federal Government, and staggered election to bicameral Congress.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    > When politicians are elected, they should be given the opportunity to actually govern on the agenda they ran on. That is a reasonable argument against filibuster. I may agree with it or disagree, I don't know where I stand. But the argument "because Republicans" should not be acceptable. > The argument that an elected majority, elected by free and fair elections, should not be able to implement the platform they ran on seems fundamentally anti-democratic in itself. It is more complicated than that. In the real world the democratic system should also protect against "tyranny of the majority". Many checks and balances exists in particular to avoid that tyranny, not just three branches you mentioned. Again, I'm not saying filibuster is good or bad.
    - pm90 6y ago
      > But the argument "because Republicans" should not be acceptable. It should be acceptable. I am not sure what perspective you are making that statement from. I am coming at it by looking at the actions of Senate Republicans for the past decade. We absolutely must judge parties by what they do. A party that exists simply for the sake of obstruction, while claiming lies as its policy platform during elections, must be called out as such: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/news/2016/07/14/141210/mitch-mcconnell-a-legacy-of-obstruction/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/news/2016/07/... > In the real world the democratic system should also protect against "tyranny of the majority". Many checks and balances exists in particular to avoid that tyranny, not just three branches you mentioned. They haven't really succeeded in doing that, if you look at American history. The majority in the US has always behaved in a tyrannical fashion, making it difficult or impossible for the minority to succeed. This happened first with the Protestant majority, then the White majority. When it couldn't do so explicitly, it did so via implicit structures that enforced this. So the argument of filibuster as a check against the "tyranny of the majority" also doesn't really hold, through experience. Its also a fundamentally racist structure: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/senate-filibuster-monument-white-supremacy/613579/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/senate-fil...
- geofft 6y ago
  You cut off half the sentence to call its reasoning dangerous, and you are misunderstanding it. The reason is not "The filibuster should be eliminated because Republicans use it, and I don't like Republicans." The reason is "The filibuster should be eliminated because it's possible for one political party to abuse it, and moreover, that has happened." That reason may be based on facts or not, or convincing or not, but it is an argument that is not based on personal dislike of one party, except insofar as one party is doing something that would be bad if any party did it, and you are prepared to dislike any party that does it. If I said "Gerrymandering is bad because Republicans have used it to their advantage," I would be agreeing with your argument about gerrymandering, because both of us would be prepared to say the same thing about any other party were that party to use gerrymandering to their advantage.

jcfields 6y ago

If we're separating the federal district, why not just give the rest of it back to Maryland the same way the area on the other side of the Potomac was given back to Virginia?

dragonwriter 6y ago
I think that was floated at one point and MD didn't want it back.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  Nor does DC want to join MD.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Sure, that’s a political problem with the idea, but MD not wanting DC is a Constitutional problem.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
xref 6y ago
Both DC and Maryland could vote on that as an alternative to statehood, but remember they were separated 230 years ago so simply forcing a reunion on the populations of both locations seems suboptimal
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
It's perfect except that neither DC nor Maryland want that.
- SllX 6y ago
  Which is exactly why we should do it anyway.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]