3 ms·
> Their "best effort" would be to change the filibuster and get it done. This seems like an iffy proposal. Changing most judicial nominations to simple majori
by memling 5y ago
> Their "best effort" would be to change the filibuster and get it done.
This seems like an iffy proposal. Changing most judicial nominations to simple majority has had a significant impact on the judiciary. Eliminating the filibuster for potentially short-lived gains while handing opposition a nearly blank check for future legislative victories seems like a long-term problem. It seems likely to exacerbate political tensions rather than relieve them.
One can argue that the deliberate nature of the Senate is inimical to justice and therefore has to change, but when the pendulum swings in the other direction it may prove to move too rapidly to injustice.
- nielsbot 5y agoI say we try it. Let us not worry about what may happen in the future. We have pressing needs now--for example, reducing the influence of money in American politics. The Senate should be made more democratic now. If the Senate flips in the future due to the will of the people, we will blow up that bridge when we get to it.
- memling 5y ago> We have pressing needs now--for example, reducing the influence of money in American politics. Is this a higher priority than reducing political tension/violence? Or is it worth increasing the likelihood of political tension/violence by eliminating the filibuster? > The Senate should be made more democratic now. If the Senate flips in the future due to the will of the people, we will blow up that bridge when we get to it. This seems short-sighted. What does it even mean? How would it solve any problems if the opposition could undo the work in a matter of a few years?