03-12-2021, 08:44 PM
(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.
