Continued Trump Administration Fallout

[Dill]

(05-06-2021, 06:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The question was --Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, 
or was it designed to require a supermajority?

That actually wasn't your question, but I'll answer it.  Originally, no.  It has, however, operated in that fashion for a substantial amount of time and I think the 60 vote threshold is well in keeping with the chambers purpose.

What was my question, then?  Here is the original from post # 24:
Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, or was it designed to require a supermajority?

Then there is this restatement in #35: Now--Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation,
or was it designed to require a supermajority?

To the second bolded: So when you say the Senate is functioning "as designed," you mean as designed since since the latter 19th century, not as originally designed, so that a simple majority vote could pass legislation in the Senate?

You appear to agree, finally, that the Framers "designed" the Senate to pass legislation with a simple majority vote, yet you also maintain that a 60 vote threshold is "consistent with the Chamber's purpose." You mean consistent with the "redesigned" purpose, then? Because a 60 vote threshold for passing bills isn't consistent with the founder's intent--even of anti-Federalist Jefferson.

(05-06-2021, 06:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, I'll ask my question, did you make any posts complaining about the filibuster during the four years of the Trump administration?  We know you didn't make any, but I'll enjoy reading your dodge.

??  I have not complained about the filibuster before under ANY administration, including Trump's or Obama's. So why would I "dodge" that?

I think I see the angle:

lever a "hypocrisy" charge, ex post facto, diverting discussion of current thread topics to discussion of my alleged character flaw. 

But a bit premature.  If I defend the filibuster next time Dems are in the minority, then you might have your "hypocrisy" case.

For now, my finally including the filibuster in critiquing a package of innovations which enables superminority control of the government doesn't suddenly make me a hypocrite because I have never criticized--or defended--the filibuster before. That's pushing the hunt for outrage rather too far.