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

[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.