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

[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.