Gov. Pedro Pierluisi: ‘Puerto Rico will be the first truly Hispanic state’

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2021, 08:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting that, recently, when Democrats don't get what they want they seek to change the rules.  Don't like two POTUS elections, let's get rid of the Electoral College!  Don't like the SCOTUS make up, let's add more justices that we can appoint!  Don't like the Senate working as designed, let's add more states from heavily blue areas!  It's not a good look.

It's so blatantly obvious that I doubt many people are blind to it. 

Right now Republicans are busting their asses to diminish the number of people who can vote because they know it will help their party.  yet you are not accusing them of just playing party politics.

Changing the rules of the electoral college would NOT benefit EITHER party.  Eliminating the "winner take all" rule of the delegates would only insure that the will of the majority decide who is out President.  The way the vote shifts back and forth there is no way you can prove it would only benefit Democrats.  That argument is nothing but a speaking point directly from the right-wing echo chamber.  That is why you should not act shocked when people accuse you of being a Republican when most of your posts are just parroting what FoxNews tells its followers to say.

[Dill]

(03-11-2021, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Absorption into an existing state doesn't resolve the issue entirely unless administration from Annapolis is the representation people of DC want, and the people of MD want to suddenly share power with, and responsibility for, a large new voting block.

They said they want representation, they'd get it that way.

If you say so.  I don't see this as a problem that requires a lot of debate.  D.C. wants representation, so give it to them.  If they want two senators of their very own then their primary concern is not representation, it's outsized political power.  All the debate in the world doesn't change that.

Limited?  If by limited you mean the exact same as every other single city in the entire United States. 

The "easy" here still eludes me. As does the "outsize" political power argument.

Every other city in the U.S. has two senators and at least one voting Representative. DC has none of that.
So they ALL have "outsized power" compared to DC--and without Congress directly interfering in their city administration.

"Let MD represent them, then--problem solved," you say.
There is rarely a lot of debate required on political representation--if the populations in question don't have a say.

As I mentioned earlier, I lived in DC for three years. Moved there in '93, the year the "Columbia Admission Act" failed in Congress.
Back in the '90s the majority of DC wanted statehood, or at least the representation of a state. For them, it's both a sovereignty issue and an issue of racial equality; their debate has been over for some time. As of a 2016 referendum, 86% want it. (Here is the losing side of that debate. https://wamu.org/story/16/11/07/why_some_dc_residents_are_voting_against_statehood/)

I'd be very surprised if any resident were ok being told--"Your representation is in Annapolis now. People you don't know. We'll dilute MD's representation to give you a little. because that's 'easiest'.  For someone."

And would MD really think an extra representative was worth the headache? Why would the state GOP ever agree?
When retrocession was floated back in 1998, the Gov. of MD was dead set against it, along with many other MDers, especially GOP, who opposed taking over DC city debts. (And another "urban" problem population, like Baltimore.)  
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-03-24-1998083134-story.html
Some DC realtor is floating the idea again, but so far unable to pick up any backers.
(Where is Bpat, anyway? He needs to be heard here.)

You say DC doesn't get to decide by themselves; the nation has a say too.
But if the nation is a democracy, why dismiss debate among the unrepresented as to how they want to be represented,
just to safeguard a superminority with "outsize" power already?

In any case, the national debate is already under way.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/26/house-passes-bill-to-make-washington-dc-the-51st-state.html

[Dill]

(03-11-2021, 08:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting that, recently, when Democrats don't get what they want they seek to change the rules.  Don't like two POTUS elections, let's get rid of the Electoral College!  Don't like the SCOTUS make up, let's add more justices that we can appoint!  Don't like the Senate working as designed, let's add more states from heavily blue areas!  It's not a good look.

It's so blatantly obvious that I doubt many people are blind to it. 

I am still defending the electoral college.

But to be fair, Dems "don't like the SCOTUS make up" because the leader of a superminority, controlling the Senate, used that power to block one president's rightful appointment (arguing we needed to wait a year for an election), and then forgot that rule to rush through a third appointment for the superminority's president a month before an election. 

So now we have an imbalanced court, favoring the superminority, likely for a decade.

And actually, I think the Dems would love a return to the Senate "working as designed."

The filibuster developed to protect the slave owning, and then the segregation supporting, minority.
It is the ability of the superminority to hold the entire country hostage via the filibuster
that has made "outsize" representation such an urgent issue.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-12-2021, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: I am still defending the electoral college.

Yes, you have been very consistent in that regard.

Quote:But to be fair, Dems "don't like the SCOTUS make up" because the leader of a superminority, controlling the Senate, used that power to block one president's rightful appointment (arguing we needed to wait a year for an election), and then forgot that rule to rush through a third appointment for the superminority's president a month before an election. 

So now we have an imbalanced court, favoring the superminority, likely for a decade.

It wasn't a "super minority", that's a talking point used to discredit the intent of the Senate.  It was the majority who made that decision.  While I understand the frustration created by the majority's action in these cases, they clearly operated within the pre-established rules.

Quote:And actually, I think the Dems would love a return to the Senate "working as designed."

No, they clearly wouldn't hence the obvious power grabs being advocated by them.

Quote:The filibuster developed to protect the slave owning, and then the segregation supporting, minority.
It is the ability of the superminority to hold the entire country hostage via the filibuster
that has made "outsize" representation such an urgent issue.

More talking points.  Mentioning hot button issues like slavery does not impress me as an argument and is a clear appeal to emotion.  Using terms like super minority do not impress me as an argument and is a clear attempt to denigrate the Senate as designed.  As stated in my post, which you didn't even bother trying to refute, the Dems have routinely, of late, complained about the rules when things didn't go their way and then sought to change them to their benefit.  You don't mind because you fall in line with them ideologically.  Anyone who deviates from their party orthodoxy should be concerned as it exposes a clear willingness to change any rules they like to achieve their goals. I have a feeling if the GOP was doing this you'd be comparing them to Nazis or screaming bloody murder.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2021, 08:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've already stated that everyone who can vote and wants to should be able to (although I'd prefer a free ID being needed to do so).  I don't like attempts at disenfranchisement and I don't think you'll find a post in which I stated otherwise.  If I haven't posted in a thread about this subject it's likely due to my seeing my positions covered by the arguments of someone else's already made post.

Why are you addressing an issue that was directed at what Republicans are doing?

The comment was about how Republicans are just trying to change the rules because they don't like the results.  You do agree that is what they are doing, don't you?  Making voter suppression a purely political issue.

Doesn't matter if there is another legitimate reason for those laws.  They must be criticized because the only reason the Republicans are taking them up is because they don't like the results of the last election.

Why won't you apply the same logic to both sides?

[fredtoast]

(03-12-2021, 04:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  the Dems have routinely, of late, complained about the rules when things didn't go their way and then sought to change them to their benefit. 


 I have a feeling if the GOP was doing this you'd be comparing them to Nazis or screaming bloody murder.

"If"?

Seriously?

[Dill]

(03-12-2021, 04:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, you have been very consistent in that regard.

It wasn't a "super minority", that's a talking point used to discredit the intent of the Senate.  It was the majority who made that decision.  While I understand the frustration created by the majority's action in these cases, they clearly operated within the pre-established rules.

No, they clearly wouldn't hence the obvious power grabs being advocated by them.

More talking points.  Mentioning hot button issues like slavery does not impress me as an argument and is a clear appeal to emotion.  Using terms like super minority do not impress me as an argument and is a clear attempt to denigrate the Senate as designed.  As stated in my post, which you didn't even bother trying to refute, the Dems have routinely, of late, complained about the rules when things didn't go their way and then sought to change them to their benefit.  You don't mind because you fall in line with them ideologically.  Anyone who deviates from their party orthodoxy should be concerned as it exposes a clear willingness to change any rules they like to achieve their goals. I have a feeling if the GOP was doing this you'd be comparing them to Nazis or screaming bloody murder.

"Superminority" refers not to a Senate vote, but to the fact that since the filibuster, a minority of Americans has imposed its will on a majority, in a state founded upon the principle of majority rule. 

That the Senate "as designed" did not include a filibuster--that's a pretty good talking point against someone who makes "as designed" the standard of procedural legitimacy. Acknowledge that or refute the point on historical/legal grounds. That I mentioned the historical genesis of the filibuster in slavery, and "slavery" is an emotional word, does not invalidate the legal/political premises, the logical consistency, or the conclusion of my argument.

I refuted your "Dems routinely complain" argument when I noted that Dem "complaints" are legitimate objections to superminority abuse of Senate power to control/block legislation--in effect to rule as a minority. To refute me, you have to explain now why those objections are not legitimate. From what perspective do efforts to restore majority rule look like a "power grab"?

If I don't mind Dem "complaints" simply because I "fall in with them ideologically," then why don't I fall in on the electoral college? 

However can you attribute to Dems some illiberal obeisance to "party orthodoxy" while the ex-GOP president is, even out of office, using his party's machinery to punish and eliminate those who voted against him--so far without effective pushback?  Or after Senate Republicans acquitted him twice on impeachment charges? And reneged on statements holding Trump accountable for the insurrection for fear of losing their seats? And after eight years of NO! under Obama, and not a single Repub signature on the ACA or the just signed COVID Relief bill?  

McConnell changed the rules and Senate precedent to give Trump three SCOTUS appointments, but it's the Dems who are "clearly willing to change any rules they don't like"???

For the record, I have indeed been saying the GOP behaves like a regime party for over a year now, punishing anyone who deviates from a Trump/McConnell orthodoxy. And I have done that without resort to hyperbole.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-12-2021, 08:12 PM)Dill Wrote: "Superminority" refers not to a Senate vote, but to the fact that since the filibuster, a minority of Americans has imposed its will on a majority, in a state founded upon the principle of majority rule.

Except the US was not founded solely on "majority rule". 

Quote:That the Senate "as designed" did not include a filibuster--that's a pretty good talking point against someone who makes "as designed" the standard of procedural legitimacy. Acknowledge that or refute the point on historical/legal grounds. That I mentioned the historical genesis of the filibuster in slavery, and "slavery" is an emotional word, does not invalidate the legal/political premises, the logical consistency, or the conclusion of my argument.

No, you mentioned it for the same reasons you routinely make comparisons to the Nazis, because it's inflammatory and invokes an emotional response.

Quote:I refuted your "Dems routinely complain" argument when I noted that Dem "complaints" are legitimate objections to superminority abuse of Senate power to control/block legislation--in effect to rule as a minority. To refute me, you have to explain now why those objections are not legitimate. From what perspective do efforts to restore majority rule look like a "power grab"?

You refuted nothing, all you did was spout talking points.  The power grab is obviously changing how the rules work because you don't like the results you get.  it's the Dem playbook of late and it's a bad look.  I don't have to explain a damn thing when you have failed to counter this basic point.

Quote:If I don't mind Dem "complaints" simply because I "fall in with them ideologically," then why don't I fall in on the electoral college? 

I don't find breaking with orthodoxy on one issue to be compelling evidence of any impartiality on your part.

Quote:However can you attribute to Dems some illiberal obeisance to "party orthodoxy" while the ex-GOP president is, even out of office, using his party's machinery to punish and eliminate those who voted against him--so far without effective pushback?  Or after Senate Republicans acquitted him twice on impeachment charges? And reneged on statements holding Trump accountable for the insurrection for fear of losing their seats? And after eight years of NO! under Obama, and not a single Repub signature on the ACA or the just signed COVID Relief bill?  

Wait, is this a both sides do it argument from you?  How interesting.  Tell you what, you want to discuss that we can discuss that.  But it's a separate issue.  GOP abuses in no way excuse or ameliorate Dem abuses.  You really come off as trying to obfuscate here.

Quote:McConnell changed the rules and Senate precedent to give Trump three SCOTUS appointments, but it's the Dems who are "clearly willing to change any rules they don't like"???

The only rule he changed was the extension of the rule change that was started by Harry Reid, again an example of the Dems changing rules when they didn't get the results they wanted.  Changing precedent is nowhere near on par with this as the actions fell within the rules.  it was underhanded and shitty, but it was within the rules.

Quote:For the record, I have indeed been saying the GOP behaves like a regime party for over a year now, punishing anyone who deviates from a Trump/McConnell orthodoxy. And I have done that without resort to hyperbole.

Great, although this has nothing to do with any point I made.

[GMDino]

So, since the discussion is now about DC I will take it that there is no longer a good argument against PR statehood if the people there want it.

And the argument against DC seems to boil down to either some metric that remains undefined in the past when it came to statehood or "Democrats".

[Dill]

(03-12-2021, 09:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: So, since the discussion is now about DC I will take it that there is no longer a good argument against PR statehood if the people there want it.

And the argument against DC seems to boil down to either some metric that remains undefined in the past when it came to statehood or "Democrats".

Both the DC and PR issues have much in common, as we are finding out. 


In each case, there is a larger issue behind the discussion, namely minority party control of the Senate, which has become an abuse of power under the filibuster. 

People are now looking at these statehood options to return some balance of power back to the Senate.

[Belsnickel]

(03-13-2021, 06:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Both the DC and PR issues have much in common, as we are finding out. 


In each case, there is a larger issue behind the discussion, namely minority party control of the Senate, which has become an abuse of power under the filibuster. 

People are now looking at these statehood options to return some balance of power back to the Senate.

Which is wrong. That should not be the reason we are contemplating statehood for these territories. Ending imperialistic policies? YES! Giving full rights, immunities, and privileges to all US citizens? YES! Insuring every citizen is represented fully in Congress? YES! Trying gain a political advantage? NO!

That is the problem that has caused SSF to view things the way he does. The entire population of Puerto Rico, DC, and every other territory could vote Republican and my position would still be the same: they should all get the referendum option of statehood. But the motives have been shown to be corrupt for a lot of people pushing statehood and it has turned people off from the idea. I'm not naïve, I know that everything is politics. We just need to reevaluate our values a bit, here.

[Dill]

(03-12-2021, 08:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:"Superminority" refers not to a Senate vote, but to the fact that since the filibuster, a minority of Americans has imposed its will on a majority, in a [b]state founded upon the principle of majority rule.

Except the US was not founded solely on "majority rule". 

I didn't say "solely." Didn't need to. I only need to establish that majority rule is a founding principle of the Constitution. It is certainly THE founding principle of any democracy.

If you don't think the U.S. was founded at all on the principle of majority rule, then the Founders beg to differ. E.g. Madison, the "Father of the Constitution,"  makes a point of affirming the "Republican Principle" which, he says, enables the majority to defeat the "sinister views" of a minority faction by "regular vote"--in which the majority wins.  
(See Para. 11) https://www2.oberlin.edu/faculty/gkornbl/GJK/H103F05/Fed10annotated-A.htm

Then there is Jefferson, whose affirmations of majority rule have been collected on a University of VA Library website under the heading "Majority Rule & Consent of the Governed." This from a letter to the German educator von Humboldt, in 1817:  

• "The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.  http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco35.htm

I can add more evidence of founding intent with references to Franklin and James Wilson. But the proof is really in the pudding, in this case, the Constitution itself, which provides the passing of legislation in Senate and House via majority vote. The special exceptions requiring supermajorities are still forms of majority rule, limited to special applications (e.g. over riding vetos, ratifying treaties, amending the Constitution) not routine passage of legislation.

Can I get you to agree, then, that majority rule (most votes wins) is a founding principle of our democracy, written into the Constitution by people who intended for the majority of votes to pass legislation? 

(03-12-2021, 08:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: [color=#f04e22]Quote:[size=small]That the Senate "as designed" did not include a filibuster--that's a pretty good talking point against someone who makes "as designed" the standard of procedural legitimacy. Acknowledge that or refute the point on historical/legal grounds. That I mentioned the historical genesis of the filibuster in slavery, and "slavery" is an emotional word, does not invalidate the legal/political premises, the logical consistency, or the conclusion of my argument.

No, you mentioned it for the same reasons you routinely make comparisons to the Nazis, because it's inflammatory and invokes an emotional response.

To keep this on track--you set a Senate "working as designed" as a standard, did you not?  

And the filibuster was not part of the Senate as designed. It evolved to enable a minority to block the majority rule principle elaborated above.

Can I get you to agree that the filibuster was not "designed" into the Senate?  And that it enables a minority to block the majority from passing routine legislation? 

(03-12-2021, 08:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You refuted nothing, all you did was spout talking points.  The power grab is obviously changing how the rules work because you don't like the results you get.  it's the Dem playbook of late and it's a bad look.  I don't have to explain a damn thing when you have failed to counter this basic point.

The talking points I "spouted" were the principle of majority rule and the critique of the filibuster as a practice which blocks majority rule.

Do you understand that anything can become a talking point, including Constitutional laws and principles? That's why just calling such principles "talking points" doesn't invalidate them. It is no theoretical/legal analysis at all, and hence no refutation of any argument based upon them. 

Democrats were not elected to validate minority rule. So they should certainly not "like the results" when a minority controls the Senate so that it does not "work as designed."  From what "impartial" perspective could changing rules so the Senate can work as designed seem a "bad look"? One would have to assume that minority rule is a constitutional principle--only then can efforts to restore majority rule seem a "power grab." 

[Dill]

(03-13-2021, 06:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is wrong. That should not be the reason we are contemplating statehood for these territories. Ending imperialistic policies? YES! Giving full rights, immunities, and privileges to all US citizens? YES! Insuring every citizen is represented fully in Congress? YES! Trying gain a political advantage? NO!

That is the problem that has caused SSF to view things the way he does. The entire population of Puerto Rico, DC, and every other territory could vote Republican and my position would still be the same: they should all get the referendum option of statehood. But the motives have been shown to be corrupt for a lot of people pushing statehood and it has turned people off from the idea. I'm not naïve, I know that everything is politics. We just need to reevaluate our values a bit, here.

With you on the bolded, Bels. 

Which is why I don't think the issue of statehood should be dismissed simply because someone--say, someone not from DC or Puerto Rico-- publicly floats the idea that it would balance power in the Senate.  Some may do that, and understandably so, but we need to work from Constitutional principles here, not our construction of others' motives. 

The flip side is that people should not be preventing statehood in DC or PR because they fear a shift in the balance of power between the parties. That is putting party interests above the rights and aspirations of the citizen populations in question.

Personally, I am satisfied if the Senate gets rid of the filibuster, in the name of the majority of U.S. voters. I have some (not full) confidence that might right many of the problems with minority rule over the last decade. 

I am not up on Puerto Rican statehood, but I am not entirely unfamiliar with the DC issue. As I said, I lived there for three years and heard a lot about it. I did not want control of the city turned over to unknown MDers. Eleanor Norton Holmes first bill to grant DC statehood was quashed the year I moved to DC. and here we are 28 years later--she has finally got the House to vote for it. I have never sensed corruption in her motives. And in comments introducing the bill, Pelosi sounds rather like you--it's about doing the right thing for people involved. 

[Dill]

(03-12-2021, 08:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:For the record, I have indeed been saying the GOP behaves like a regime party for over a year now, punishing anyone who deviates from a Trump/McConnell orthodoxy. And I have done that without resort to hyperbole.

Great, although this has nothing to do with any point I made.

You did say I would resort to hyperbole--"Nazis and bloody murder"--if the Republicans were doing what the Dems.  I was responding to dispute this:

(03-12-2021, 04:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: More talking points.  Mentioning hot button issues like slavery does not impress me as an argument and is a clear appeal to emotion.  Using terms like super minority do not impress me as an argument and is a clear attempt to denigrate the Senate as designed.  As stated in my post, which you didn't even bother trying to refute, the Dems have routinely, of late, complained about the rules when things didn't go their way and then sought to change them to their benefit.  You don't mind because you fall in line with them ideologically.  Anyone who deviates from their party orthodoxy should be concerned as it exposes a clear willingness to change any rules they like to achieve their goals. I have a feeling if the GOP was doing this you'd be comparing them to Nazis or screaming bloody murder.

I am saying the GOP IS "doing this" and not the Dems. They are doing exactly that for which you say I would be "comparing them to Nazis or screaming bloody murder."  But of course, I have not made that comparison; you are the only one talking about "Nazis." i.e., talking about something that hasn't happened.

Dems complain when "things don't go their way" when the "things" happen to involve violations of legal and constitutional principles and norms. As when a Republican minority blocks legislation which would pass with a simple majority vote, or as when Trump refused to acknowledge he had lost an election and tried to block the peaceful transfer of power. Yes, the Dems "complain" when rules and norms are flouted.

(03-12-2021, 08:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: [b]Quote:[/b]However can you attribute to Dems some illiberal obeisance to "party orthodoxy" while the ex-GOP president is, even out of office, using his party's machinery to punish and eliminate those who voted against him--so far without effective pushback?  Or after Senate Republicans acquitted him twice on impeachment charges? And reneged on statements holding Trump accountable for the insurrection for fear of losing their seats? And after eight years of NO! under Obama, and not a single Repub signature on the ACA or the just signed COVID Relief bill?  

Wait, is this a both sides do it argument from you?  How interesting.  Tell you what, you want to discuss that we can discuss that.  But it's a separate issue.  GOP abuses in no way excuse or ameliorate Dem abuses.  You really come off as trying to obfuscate here.

No, definitely NOT saying "both sides do it."   I am saying your description of the Democrats here fits the Republicans, not the Democrats.  I agree Republican abuses should not "excuse" Dem abuses. I am just disagreeing with your characterization of Dems as somehow the party of "abuses" and "orthodoxy" and all that.  Like Dems are the party of power grab, not the party whose president tried to block a peaceful and legal transfer of power, and whose Senators then let him off scot free, for a second time in one year, because their Senators fearfully fell in line. 

While I have listed many GOP "abuses," you really haven't come up with one for the Dems--except they are changing a "rule" you haven't really specified, and which might re-aligning current Senate practice with its Constitutional origins. 

You seem to think blocking a supreme court nominee a year away from election on the grounds we need to wait for the voters to speak, and then pushing one forward the month before an election because the people have spoken, is not a "power grab" because it isn't "changing rules."  So I am not clear on what really counts as a power grab for you, as Republicans seem exempt from the charge regardless of their behavior.  Can you specify the rule change you think is a power grab, and explain how it contravenes Constitutional principle? Don't discuss motives; explain the principle.

[GMDino]

(03-13-2021, 06:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Both the DC and PR issues have much in common, as we are finding out. 


In each case, there is a larger issue behind the discussion, namely minority party control of the Senate, which has become an abuse of power under the filibuster. 

People are now looking at these statehood options to return some balance of power back to the Senate.

Only thing I see in common is that there a few people (mostly not Democrats) are concerned that more Democratic voters will be get representation in the form of senators.

But the gqp never seems to want to change their message to get more votes they just want to change the voting to keep themselves in charge with less and less support/number of voters behind them.  Always changing things when they can't get their way. 

[fredtoast]

Here is basically how the argument breaks down.

We have 700K US citizens whose vote do not count in Congress.

Dems want to make those votes count (Added representatives to reflect added votes)

GOP wants to make sure the new votes are added without changing anything. (No new added representatives. Instead just dilute to value of the Maryland voters.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-13-2021, 10:26 PM)Dill Wrote: You did say I would resort to hyperbole--"Nazis and bloody murder"--if the Republicans were doing what the Dems.  I was responding to dispute this:

Ok, let's see then.

Quote:I am saying the GOP IS "doing this" and not the Dems. They are doing exactly that for which you say I would be "comparing them to Nazis or screaming bloody murder."  But of course, I have not made that comparison; you are the only one talking about "Nazis." i.e., talking about something that hasn't happened.

Except they are not "doing this".  You haven't even cited one example.

Quote:Dems complain when "things don't go their way" when the "things" happen to involve violations of legal and constitutional principles and norms. As when a Republican minority blocks legislation which would pass with a simple majority vote, or as when Trump refused to acknowledge he had lost an election and tried to block the peaceful transfer of power. Yes, the Dems "complain" when rules and norms are flouted.

You said "rules and norms" as if they are the same thing.  They are not.  You have shown that norms were fouted.  You've shown absolutely nothing in which rules were.

Quote:No, definitely NOT saying "both sides do it."   I am saying your description of the Democrats here fits the Republicans, not the Democrats.  I agree Republican abuses should not "excuse" Dem abuses. I am just disagreeing with your characterization of Dems as somehow the party of "abuses" and "orthodoxy" and all that.  Like Dems are the party of power grab, not the party whose president tried to block a peaceful and legal transfer of power, and whose Senators then let him off scot free, for a second time in one year, because their Senators fearfully fell in line. 

Dear god, using the Capitol riots as an example of GOP party orthodoxy is inane.  Did some within the party excuse or even prop it up?  Yup.  Much like many Dem politicians excused and propped up the violent riots that occurred for much of last year (and this weekend).  

Quote:While I have listed many GOP "abuses," you really haven't come up with one for the Dems--except they are changing a "rule" you haven't really specified, and which might re-aligning current Senate practice with its Constitutional origins. 

I haven't specified?  I literally cited three or four examples.  This is why trying to engage with you is tiresome.

Quote:You seem to think blocking a supreme court nominee a year away from election on the grounds we need to wait for the voters to speak, and then pushing one forward the month before an election because the people have spoken, is not a "power grab" because it isn't "changing rules." 

A power grab, sure.  But one within the rules.  Changing the rules to enact your power grab is a whole different animal.

Quote:So I am not clear on what really counts as a power grab for you, as Republicans seem exempt from the charge regardless of their behavior.  Can you specify the rule change you think is a power grab, and explain how it contravenes Constitutional principle? Don't discuss motives; explain the principle.

Quite simply, no, I am not going to explain the point again so you can then tap dance around it, again.  It's in this thread, find it or don't.  In the meantime I'll enjoy your latest example of "I'm blind to excesses by people I agree with".  It's not even a trope anymore, it's objective fact.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2021, 02:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except they are not "doing this".  You haven't even cited one example.

Voter suppression laws.

[Dill]

(03-14-2021, 02:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except they are not "doing this".  You haven't even cited one example.
You said "rules and norms" as if they are the same thing.  They are not.  You have shown that norms were fouted.  You've shown absolutely nothing in which rules were.
Dear god, using the Capitol riots as an example of GOP party orthodoxy is inane.  Did some within the party excuse or even prop it up?  Yup.  Much like many Dem politicians excused and propped up the violent riots that occurred for much of last year (and this weekend).  
I haven't specified?  I literally cited three or four examples.  This is why trying to engage with you is tiresome.
A power grab, sure.  But one within the rules.  Changing the rules to enact your power grab is a whole different animal.
Quite simply, no, I am not going to explain the point again so you can then tap dance around it, again.  It's in this thread, find it or don't.  In the meantime I'll enjoy your latest example of "I'm blind to excesses by people I agree with".  It's not even a trope anymore, it's objective fact.

To recap: In response to the question of DC statehood, you asserted that absorbing DC into MD would be “easiest solution for all involved," whereas making them a state would give them “outsize power.”
 
Rejecting this top-down solution as easiest only for the national GOP, I favored first consulting the residents of MD and DC, to see if diluted representation was acceptable to the concerned populations. You re-asserted the retrocession “solved all problems” and saw no need for further debate. I then documented why most DC (85%) and some MD residents for sure would not find this solution easiest (post #122).  You have not responded to that evidence.  Bels has raised the further issue of jurisdictional conflicts, which could complicate retrocession.

Next issue was motive: you accused Dems of wanting to “change the rules when they don’t get their way” (#109)—e.g., rules governing the electoral college (which the majority of the U.S. wants it scrapped), Supreme Court packing, and a  Senate you presumed was now “working as designed.”

In response, I explained, in Consitutional/legal terms, that the Senate is not “working as designed” because it was not designed to allow a superminority to block majority rule over routine legislation and to block legitimate SCOTUS appointments (legitimate by law, i.e., a “rule”) (#127).  It is in response to the failure of majority rule that SOME Dems, not all, have floated changes in the electoral college (supported by a majority of the U.S. population), scrapping the filibuster, and court packing—the latter because lawful Dem appointments have been blocked for years.

However, you dismissed this argument from Constitutional principle as “Dem talking points,” disputing that our democracy is founded on majority rule. I then documented the principle of majority rule with reference to Founders’ intent and the Constitution itself (#132).  

You have still not agreed that majority rule is a Constitutional principle, and that the filibuster was no part of the Senate “as designed.”  Lack of understanding—or agreement—with that majority-rule principle would explain your belief Dems are engaged in a “power grab” if they seek to reassert majority rule by contesting rules already changed to preserve superminority control over routine legislation and court appointments, while Republicans who bend those already-changed rules to maintain superminority control are simply “playing by the [already-changed] rules.”  But you dismiss my invitation to address the argument from Constitutional principle as an argument, by simply asserting “blind[ness] to the excesses of people [I] agree with” is now an “objective fact."

You also asserted that I and the Dem party submit to some Dem “orthodoxy” regarding the issue of DC statehood. But “orthodoxy” here would imply a party discipline or at least unanimity over political issues of a sort currently found only among the Republicans. E.g., court packing is not Dem orthodoxy, shared by all, nor found in a party platform or a stated party goal. In contrast, GOP senators have exhibited an extraordinary and unprecedented party discipline since the ACA passed with only Dem support. Submission to a rule-breaking president through two impeachments for fear of being primaried is also evidence of this discipline. (Nixon could not count on such discipline to protect him from the law.) Someone who asserts a Demo orthodoxy dominating the party needs to provide evidence they are more disciplined and submissive to party leaders (even those now out of power) than Republicans.   And to explain why some Dem-proposed rule changes which are not even formally debated or agreed on by all constitute an "orthodoxy."

So your reply just continues with one-line “rebuttals,” unsupportable inference asserted as “objective fact,” and a refusal to document claims or argue constitutional principle.  You have decided what is best for DC representation. Disagreement only proves the other side's bias, so you are not going to “explain again” what you have not adequately explained by addressing objections. Perhaps we could let this dispute stand as is. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2021, 11:18 AM)Dill Wrote: You have still not agreed that majority rule is a Constitutional principle, and that the filibuster was no part of the Senate “as designed.” 

Not only is this a false statement but it really shows that you tend to argue from a disingenuous position.  I guess I can now understand why you never "see" Fred's antics, it's because you've been learning at his feet.  In any case, I think we're done here.