• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try?

    They literally did try; I just presented you with evidence that they tried: the Freedom to Vote Act. It had enough cosponsors to pass the House and the Senate; it died due to the filibuster.

    So go ahead and tell me what your plan would’ve been; I’m listening, because you forgot to express one. And if it involves removing the filibuster, 1) that legislation is in the exact same territory as the Voting Rights Act (legally for what the SCOTUS is allowed to do to it; in terms of judicial precedent, it’s far worse-off, because holy shit, we’re talking about the fucking VRA here), and 2) I dare you to imagine what a 53–47 Senate, a 217–212 House, and Trump could do without the filibuster. I will tell you it’s unfathomably worse than what’s already happening, and I will also tell you that “well it totally wouldn’t have happened with better voting rights!!” is just 1) credulously assuming it wouldn’t have already been struck down and 2) not a solid assumption even if not.

    Is your plan to delete the filibuster before absolutely flooding the zone with voting rights legislation in hopes they can’t strike it all down and fuck voting rights precedent even worse? Good thinking, Mr. Brannigan; SCOTUS-bots have a pre-programmed judicial review limit, after all. (They do not.)

    • GodlessCommie@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      4 days ago

      The filibuster is one of their rotating villains. They dont try to change the system because they benefit to much from it.

      • Einskjaldi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Without it they would have passed a anti voter bill that would guarantee they never lose this year.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          So why don’t the Republicans get rid of it then?

          The only reason either party has to maintain the filibuster is precedent, to restrain the other party the next time the other party wins. If the filibuster is the only thing standing between the Republicans and a dictatorship where they will never lose power again, then what’s stopping them from getting rid of it themselves, right now even?

          • Einskjaldi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Because you will always have a risk people voting out the party in power when you have very bad election year like post bush 2008, and then democrats would pass universal Medicare, raise minimum wage, could pass abortion law federally, and everything they don’t like. And they know that a lot of it would be popular once it’s in place and be harder to get rid of. It works both ways and it rewards centrists.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I don’t think you read this part:

              If the filibuster is the only thing standing between the Republicans and a dictatorship where they will never lose power again

              • Einskjaldi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                That’s the tension, but the people in power are rich and don’t like risk. That’s a situation where you win or you die.