Jump to content

Oh how things change depending on POTUS


Recommended Posts

 

Washington(CNN)A bipartisan group of 61 senators sent a letter to Senate leaders Friday urging them to maintain the 60-vote threshold for filibusters involving legislation, which they said is needed to ensure bipartisanship remains a component of passing bills through the chamber. 

The move comes in the wake of a contentious battle this week in the Senate over the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch when the Republicans who control the chamber used the "nuclear option" to neutralize the filibuster for nominees to the Supreme Court. 

"We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions as they pertain to the right of Members to engage in extended debate on legislation before the United States Senate," said the letter that was spearheaded by GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware. "Senators have expressed a variety of opinions about the appropriateness of limiting debate when we are considering judicial and executive branch nominations. Regardless of our past disagreements on that issue, we are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor."

The signatures of 28 Republicans, 32 Democrats and one independent is evidence that a broad mix of senators will back the filibuster for legislation.

Link

Link to post
Share on other sites

So were they lying then or now -

Schumer: They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way you change the rules.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): The legislative filibuster should stay there and I will personally resist efforts to get rid of it.

Sen. Chis Coons (D-DE): I’m committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): That would be the end of the Senate.

Joe Biden: It raises problems that are more damaging than the problem that exists.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game because you do not like the outcome.

Biden: You’re going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done.

Schumer: Change the rules in midstream to wash away 200 years of history.

Biden: Nothing at all will get done.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): I don’t think that we ought to be coming in willy-nilly and changing the rules.

Durbin: You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.

Schumer: Ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): If you don’t have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven’t done enough advocacy and you need to work a lot harder.

Biden: It is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.

Menendez: Partisan power grab that will stomp on the rights of the minority and leave fundamentally changed for the worse.

Durbin: Preserve checks and balances so that no one party can do whatever it wants.

Schumer: It’ll be a doomsday for democracy.

Coons: The one most important rule that requires compromise requires working across the aisle.

Biden: It is a fundamental power grab.

Menendez: I will not stand by when a party drunk with power tries to overturn 200 years of precedent.

Biden: Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gone Drinking said:

Biden: Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do.

I completely agree. And, if the GOP is successful in restricting voting and extreme gerrymandering, and wind up taking the Senate, I expect this is one of the first things they’ll do. 
 

I look forward to seeing you, The Joker, jzk, and the rest of The Faithful take the same position you have now. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
1 hour ago, Gone Drinking said:

Biden: Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do.

I completely agree. And, if the GOP is successful in restricting voting and extreme gerrymandering, and wind up taking the Senate, I expect this is one of the first things they’ll do. 
 

I look forward to seeing you, The Joker, jzk, and the rest of The Faithful take the same position you have now. 

They won't. They'll be saying "Ha ha! We WON! Now we can do whatever the fuck we want, so suck it libtards!"

- DSK

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

I completely agree. And, if the GOP is successful in restricting voting and extreme gerrymandering, and wind up taking the Senate, I expect this is one of the first things they’ll do. 
 

I look forward to seeing you, The Joker, jzk, and the rest of The Faithful take the same position you have now. 

More bullshit.  They could have done it when Trump was calling for it.  That’s when this letter was written.  BUT THEY DIDN’T.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It’s good to see bullshitters objecting to bullshitting, since 1/20/21. That’s a good change. 

Another good change is hearing Moscow Mitch object to Biden's hateful and insulting language.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

It’s good to see bullshitters objecting to bullshitting, since 1/20/21. That’s a good change. 

Nope the only bullshitters are the democratic senators and Joe Biden calling for the end of the filibuster, only a few years after objecting to ending it in such strong terms.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

More bullshit.  They could have done it when Trump was calling for it.  That’s when this letter was written.  BUT THEY DIDN’T.   

One of us will be right, should the Senate flip. 
 

I hope it’s you. But, I won’t bet on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nope the only bullshitters are the democratic senators and Joe Biden calling for the end of the filibuster, only a few years after objecting to ending it in such strong terms.  

Why lie? They aren’t calling for the end of the ‘Buster. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nope the only bullshitters are the democratic senators and Joe Biden calling for the end of the filibuster, only a few years after objecting to ending it in such strong terms.  

And this is why you're considered a fucking idiot.

The filibuster exists because politics. It can be removed because politics.

It advantages the losers.

The US is going backwards because the people that win an election are blocked from actually moving the country forward.

You know all those countries that are overtaking the US in the things you hold to be important? They don't have such bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

...

You know all those countries that are overtaking the US in the things you hold to be important? They don't have such bullshit.

They don't have Trumpublicans

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

One of us will be right, should the Senate flip. 
 

I hope it’s you. But, I won’t bet on it. 

There's no point in the R's tossing the filibuster it until they get the white house.  They have already guaranteed that Arizona and Georgia will always return R.  They just need to seize the votes in Penn, Wisc, and Mich. Loose the executive in one of them, just one, and you'll never see an electoral majority in the D's favor again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

And this is why you're considered a fucking idiot.

The filibuster exists because politics. It can be removed because politics.

It advantages the losers.

The US is going backwards because the people that win an election are blocked from actually moving the country forward.

You know all those countries that are overtaking the US in the things you hold to be important? They don't have such bullshit.

Actually I’m quite respected outside this partisan website.  As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended.   But carry on with your misunderstanding of the function of the US senate in our republic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Why lie? They aren’t calling for the end of the ‘Buster. 

Really did you even watch Biden’s speech?    Here I’ll help you out  

WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden on Tuesday said the U.S. Senate should consider scrapping a longstanding supermajority rule known as the "filibuster"

Time

But now that he’s President, Biden says Republican efforts to restrict American access to voting demand a change in his beloved institution. “I believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills,” Biden said in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday. “Debate them. Vote. Let the majority prevail—and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster for this.”

(CNN)President Joe Biden painted a dire picture for the nation's future elections during a major speech on voting rights while in Atlanta on Tuesday, expressing his frustration at Republicans who blocked voting rights legislation and calling on the US Senate to change its filibuster rules to accommodate the bills' passage.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Actually I’m quite respected outside this partisan website.  As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended.   But carry on with your misunderstanding of the function of the US senate in our republic. 

Except your founders didn't have what you have now.

 

"In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous Articles of Confederation, and identified several evils which would result from such a requirement:

"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.”[6]"
 
Mr Hamilton thinks you're a fucking idiot too.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Actually I’m quite respected outside this partisan website.  As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended.   But carry on with your misunderstanding of the function of the US senate in our republic. 

Our founders didn’t write the filibuster into the Connie. That’s another misunderstanding you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Really did you even watch Biden’s speech?    Here I’ll help you out  

WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden on Tuesday said the U.S. Senate should consider scrapping a longstanding supermajority rule known as the "filibuster"

Time

But now that he’s President, Biden says Republican efforts to restrict American access to voting demand a change in his beloved institution. “I believe the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills,” Biden said in Atlanta, Georgia on Tuesday. “Debate them. Vote. Let the majority prevail—and if that bare minimum is blocked, we have no option but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster for this.”

(CNN)President Joe Biden painted a dire picture for the nation's future elections during a major speech on voting rights while in Atlanta on Tuesday, expressing his frustration at Republicans who blocked voting rights legislation and calling on the US Senate to change its filibuster rules to accommodate the bills' passage.

 

 

 

 

He wants to get rid of it for this one bill, like we do for the budget and the judges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

He wants to get rid of it for this one bill, like we do for the budget and the judges.

Was going to say the same. I wonder if The Joker is cool with the other exceptions you mention?  And, was he when the Senate had a GOP majority?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Joker said:

 As to the filibuster it’s part of the senate rules and last I checked it’s working exactly as our founders intended.   But carry on with your misunderstanding of the function of the US senate in our republic. 

How stupid and venal can you possibly be ?? The filibuster is a relic of a typo (before there even was such a thing) of a racist oligarchy . 

If Burr had lost that duel to Hamilton it may never have happened. (somebody check me on this !) (also poly sigh humor alert) 

Since that time, the filibuster has repeatedly been used primarily to sabotage civil rights for our dark skinned brothers and sisters. 

Seriously, that is the history - look it up

Jokester, shame on you. 

Blow it up - blow it up now. 

At least for Jeebus sake, debate it in Congress - which the filibuster also prevents. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Was going to say the same. I wonder if The Joker is cool with the other exceptions you mention?  And, was he when the Senate had a GOP majority?

Nope I wasn’t cool when Harry Reid started the senate down this path.  Mitch McConnell  warned him what would happen and  he did it anyway. 
The only reason Reid didn’t include SCOTUS was because it hadn’t  become an issue under Obama as the GOP voted for Kagan  and Sotomeyer.  

It’s pretty much a moot point as the Dems can’t even get their own Senators on board. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Our founders didn’t write the filibuster into the Connie. That’s another misunderstanding you have.

Was it the flounders?

image.jpeg.da114c2ea380fcb67ebcf2ced1e262a2.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Our founders didn’t write the filibuster into the Connie. That’s another misunderstanding you have.

No misunderstanding at all. the constitution clearly says that the Senate creates its own rules.  The filibuster is part of the rules.   Which is exactly what I wrote. 
Article 1 section 5

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Joker said:

No misunderstanding at all. the constitution clearly says that the Senate creates its own rules.  The filibuster is part of the rules.   Which is exactly what I wrote. 
Article 1 section 5

Which means they can change when they want to, just like the founders intended.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Which means they can change when they want to, just like the founders intended.

The founders intended the Senate to be a cooling off chamber for legislation.  Slow and deliberate.   Not rush bills through because their leader needs a win.  The Filibuster has been around for over 200 years and is part of the deliberation process.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

The founders intended the Senate to be a cooling off chamber for legislation.  Slow and deliberate.   Not rush bills through because their leader needs a win.  The Filibuster has been around for over 200 years and is part of the deliberation process.  

Not according to Hamilton.

Or are you going to cherry pick your founders too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Joker said:

The founders intended the Senate to be a cooling off chamber for legislation.  Slow and deliberate.   Not rush bills through because their leader needs a win.  The Filibuster has been around for over 200 years and is part of the deliberation process.  

Then you should think long and hard about why Democrats are now considering modifying the rule. This isn't contemplated in a vacuum, yet you seem to entirely ignore the role the GOP has had in breaking the ability of the Senate to pass legislation for the public good.

You're very loyal to your party, but forget it only exists to serve the nation.

Get over your self importance and the issue of the moment. Voting rights, convincing the citizens that their votes will count, is far more important to our nation than a rule governing the Senate's deliberations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Not according to Hamilton.

Or are you going to cherry pick your founders too?

In this case I’ll go with Madison and Jefferson.   Hamilton is a good play though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Joker said:

The founders intended the Senate to be a cooling off chamber for legislation.  Slow and deliberate.   Not rush bills through because their leader needs a win.  The Filibuster has been around for over 200 years and is part of the deliberation process.  

And I’m fine with the traditional one. You know, get up and talk. Current one is for the lazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Then you should think long and hard about why Democrats are now considering modifying the rule. This isn't contemplated in a vacuum, yet you seem to entirely ignore the role the GOP has had in breaking the ability of the Senate to pass legislation for the public good.

You're very loyal to your party, but forget it only exists to serve the nation.

Get over your self importance and the issue of the moment. Voting rights, convincing the citizens that their votes will count, is far more important to our nation than a rule governing the Senate's deliberations.

It’s all a red herring.  The Dems liked how Covid changed voting.  They see an advantage   The Republicans want to make sure we have checks on those broad voting methods   It’s exactly where there should be a way to compromise   But Biden wants to ram through a one sided bill   Not going to happen  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It’s all a red herring.  The Dems liked how Covid changed voting.  They see an advantage   The Republicans want to make sure we have checks on those broad voting methods   It’s exactly where there should be a way to compromise   But Biden wants to ram through a one sided bill   Not going to happen  

 

 

bullshit, 'you' power-mad cunts are literally trying to steal elections; you'd otherwise have no issues if you weren't a weak-as-piss minority, eh. 

but keep flapping your cocksucker, maybe it'll change the reality of the situation, which is crystal clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Joker said:

It’s all a red herring.  The Dems liked how Covid changed voting.  They see an advantage   The Republicans want to make sure we have checks on those broad voting methods   It’s exactly where there should be a way to compromise   But Biden wants to ram through a one sided bill   Not going to happen  

 

 

Checks on voting?

How very authoritarian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Checks on voting?

How very authoritarian.

You haven't actually read the bill.  The checks would be the federal government deciding on who needs to be checked.  About as authoritarian as it gets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

bullshit, 'you' power-mad cunts are literally trying to steal elections; you'd otherwise have no issues if you weren't a weak-as-piss minority, eh. 

but keep flapping your cocksucker, maybe it'll change the reality of the situation, which is crystal clear.

Poor little baby.  Just wait till November. Hopefully you will have access to Zantac 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Poor little baby.  Just wait till November. Hopefully you will have access to Zantac 

you seem confident in your foul ways. you're a crass demented cunt, and I mean that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

you seem confident in your foul ways. you're a crass demented cunt, and I mean that.

I suggest we add Prozac to your medicine list.  November is going to be really tough on you and I mean that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I suggest we add Prozac to your medicine list.  November is going to be really tough on you and I mean that.  

I'm just fine, I'm not the one crawling on the Low Road. little 'nazi' bitch, you're not right in the head or soul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Well, voting is a federal right.

The bill has very little to do with voting rights it’s all about control.  Some of the  Dems want the Feds to have control of elections, the majority of the Senate are comfortable with the current rules. 
democracy in action 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

The bill has very little to do with voting rights it’s all about control.  Some of the  Dems want the Feds to have control of elections, the majority of the Senate are comfortable with the current rules. 
democracy in action 

seatbelts, 'it's all about control'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'm just fine, you're the one crawling on the Low Road. little 'nazi' bitch, you're not right in the head or soul.

Your vocabulary - power mad cunt, Cock sucker, Crass demented cunt, Nazi bitch.  Yet  I’m the one not right in the head.   LOL 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Your vocabulary - power mad cunt, Cock sucker, Crass demented cunt, Nazi bitch.  Yet  I’m the one not right in the head.   LOL 

I'm not the one advocating for fascistic government structures. lol

fuck you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

I'm not the one advocating for fascistic government structures. lol

fuck you.

Fascistic government structures? You mean were the party with a tie in the senate and the smallest majority in decades, in the house doesn’t see the need to  find a way to convince members of their own party, let alone the other party to support this bill. So they are demanding the rules be changed so they can get their own way. That type of Fascism? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

In this case I’ll go with Madison and Jefferson.   Hamilton is a good play though. 

Madison and Jefferson?

Didn't they make a change to who traditionally became Vice President?

 

You want to use them to support your case to not change?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Madison and Jefferson?

Didn't they make a change to who traditionally became Vice President?

 

You want to use them to support your case to not change?

I’m not making a case I let the 60+ senators that wrote the letter supporting the Filibuster make the case.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I’m not making a case I let the 60+ senators that wrote the letter supporting the Filibuster make the case.  

Of course you're not making the case. You brought up the founding because you're a history buff.

 

You mean the 60+ people who rely on such things to be more credible to their donors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer to this:

If you don't pass voting rights you're going to lose democracy. So the debate becomes do you want to save the filibuster or do you want to save democracy?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Fascistic government structures? You mean were the party with a tie in the senate and the smallest majority in decades, in the house doesn’t see the need to  find a way to convince members of their own party, let alone the other party to support this bill. So they are demanding the rules be changed so they can get their own way. That type of Fascism? 

that's right you willfully blind ideologue clown, get an inch, take a mile. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I completely agree. And, if the GOP is successful in restricting voting and extreme gerrymandering, and wind up taking the Senate, I expect this is one of the first things they’ll do. 
 

I look forward to seeing you, The Joker, jzk, and the rest of The Faithful take the same position you have now. 

Good like with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Short answer to this:

If you don't pass voting rights you're going to lose democracy. So the debate becomes do you want to save the filibuster or do you want to save democracy?

there it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice! said:

Short answer to this:

If you don't pass voting rights you're going to lose democracy. So the debate becomes do you want to save the filibuster or do you want to save democracy?

It's about neither the filibuster or democracy.

It's about power. Those on both sides want more power.

One wants it by handing power to the voters,one wants it by taking away power from the voters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It's about neither the filibuster or democracy.

It's about power. Those on both sides want more power.

One wants it by handing power to the voters,one wants it by taking away power from the voters.

so by that logic, if I continue to willfully respirate, it's some kind of power grab? a democratic process is under attack, it's about defense, not offense for the democrats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

It's about power. Those on both sides want more power.

One wants it by handing power to the voters,one wants it by taking away power from the voters.

What are you, some kind of political scientist ?? 

Power to my way of thinking is authority minus legitimacy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Power without legitimacy doesn't have a great success rate.

But that must sorta mean that legitimacy is authority minus power  . . 

got to be an article in there somewhere . .  

I enjoy and learn from your posts. 

Psycho trolls not so much 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

But that must sorta mean that legitimacy is authority minus power  . . 

got to be an article in there somewhere . .  

I enjoy and learn from your posts. 

Psycho trolls not so much 

"Legitimacy is authority without power."

That has a good ring to it.


However I'm thinking that we are using these words more in a technical context.

 

To me, power describes the mechanism in which one entity gets another entity to do the things it wants it to do.

Authority and legitimacy are adverbs.

 

There may well be a more direct relationship between power, legitimacy and authority. But I'm not convinced there has to be.

 

To bring all that back to the topic, give the people the power to elect a government that actually has the power to do what they promised the people they would do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:
8 hours ago, Nice! said:

Short answer to this:

If you don't pass voting rights you're going to lose democracy. So the debate becomes do you want to save the filibuster or do you want to save democracy?

It's about neither the filibuster or democracy.

It's about power. Those on both sides want more power.

One wants it by handing power to the voters,one wants it by taking away power from the voters.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has already answered this question. US citizens do not have any inherent right to vote, nor any right to have their votes counted. That is at the whim of the state.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Joker said:

Actually I’m quite respected outside this partisan website....

:lol:          :lol:

So respected, you have to tell people how much respect you get.

And this isn't a "partisan" web site. It's an open forum. Your team looks like a bunch of idiots because you're all dumber than fuck.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has already answered this question. US citizens do not have any inherent right to vote, nor any right to have their votes counted. That is at the whim of the state. 

One of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever - right up there with Dred Scott. 

But there is a way around it,  jurisdiction-stripping 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress has the right to adjust regulations for voting 

Proposed changes would improve voter participation, which would force both parties to adapt.

Democrats would need to improve the impact of their legislation over what they claim it would do, and Republicans would have to allow  the voices and participation of persons they currently ignore.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Congress has the right to adjust regulations for voting 

Proposed changes would improve voter participation, which would force both parties to adapt.

Democrats would need to improve the impact of their legislation over what they claim it would do, and Republicans would have to allow  the voices and participation of persons they currently ignore.

I agree with that.  But the compromises need to be in the bill prior to passage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...