Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is all getting a bit crazy. You are hung up on a single issue and focusing on that to the exclusion of anything else. I'm going to make one more response and then let this go.

So you acknowledge that the Senate is not elected by the nation in a manner consistent with Democracy,

From a certain point of view, it is absolutely in line with Democracy. One state, one vote. Or in this case two votes. It is highly democratic, but at the state level and not at the individual level.

And at the time of the Constitution, the largest state was almost 3 times larger than the smallest. Today, that is closer to six times.

I didn't check the historical population numbers. (They can get a bit tricky anyway due to the counting/not-counting/partial counting of slaves.) But you're way off on the current figures. The largest state by population is closer to 80 times the smallest. Perhaps you're talking about area, where that would be along the lines of 600 times, and just slipped the decimal point a couple of places. And for the record, I am a resident of that most populous state.

I find what happened with Obama's Supreme Court Nominee, Garland, to be almost criminal. I find the actions of the US Senate in recent years to be appalling and destructive to our government. And the reason is largely because of this massive over-representation of a minority party funded by billionaires in the Senate. However well the Senate has served the US in the past, that time is long over. It is time to adopt or die.

I don't disagree. (Well, except perhaps the Senate should adapt instead of adopt.) But now your slipping from the filibuster to constitutional level changes. And I don't disagree with that, either. It may be appropriate to consider a change regarding the Senate. But again, that's not something that will happen in the next year or two. Or ten. So in the meantime, democrats have to figure out how to accomplish their goals within the current framework while also working on that framework.

Not different . . . worse.

That's a value judgement. I'm trying to stick to facts to find points of agreement. Legislation that passes the Senate is undeniably different because of the filibuster.

Plus, please name one other piece of legislation that addresses something other than a global pandemic that will be both significant and get passed while Mitch holds the filibuster.

It's not legislation - and I don't think it's subject to filibuster - but Biden's nominees are, somewhat slowly, getting approved with bipartisan support. And often it's very significant bipartisan support - in the 70%-90+% of the full Senate range of support. So it's not like agreement is impossible. Agreement is happening in the here and now. The trick is to find ways to move that support from nominees to legislation. If it can be done for nominees, it CAN be done for legislation.

Is it going to be the sweeping reform kind of legislation? No. On the other hand, any progress is progress. Sometimes the steps forward are small. No - most of the time the steps are small. Broad reform is rare. But keep chipping away at the edges and eventually you can make a lot of progress.

--Peter
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.