Fair, provided we agree that doing so is a perversion of the system and that the Supreme Court was never intended to be a replacement for the legislature when the party in power fails to push their agenda effectively.
We are in agreement that Congress passes bills and presidents signs them, and that's where new laws should come from. However, if the Supreme Court finds something unconstitutional, for example, and that has a significant effect on the law, that should also happen if the thing was actually unconstitutional. I think you would agree.
I have been shouting from the metaphorical mountaintops that we should end the filibuster and Electoral College, even when members of the Democratic Party benefited from the filibuster and/or Electoral College. You can disagree with me, but I'm going to be consistent. If eliminating the filibuster, Electoral College, unrepresentative Senate, gerrymandering, etc. benefited Republicans, I would still say we should do it.
The filibuster prevents legislation that's only popular with one side of the aisle to pass and forces both parties to reach compromises. Congress wasn't created to rapidly pass new laws - the opposite is true, the hurdles are there on purpose and are supposed to stop Congress from passing legislation that does not have broad appeal.
The filibuster prevents legislation that's broadly popular, and even has 50-59% support, from passing. It allows from a minority of just above 40% the ability to block any legislation, and it's anti-democratic. The history of the filibuster is also embarrassing. It was accidentally created from an oversight because a Senate rule was eliminated without being replaced, and it was made what is mostly is today because Senators wanted to block anti-lynching bills and the removal of Jim Crow laws.
For someone who likes the Constitution and balance of powers so much, you seem to be ignoring the original intent by the founders for the Senate to be a majority body. Sounds like an ex post facto rationalization to me.
As for your point about the filibuster leading to more compromises, that's demonstrably untrue. It's a tool for the minority to use to block legislation they don't like automatically without having to participate in the legislative process. Without the filibuster, the two parties would actually have to work together to come up with compromise bills. If the majority party didn't do that, they would have to deal with the electoral consequences of passing a bill without support from the other party. If the minority party didn't do that, the bill they didn't like would be passed without them having any say. And, when the majority margin is thin (like 50/50), one or two Senators could cross over to the other side, leading to compromise. If a moderate member of the majority party had concerns with a bill, they could cross over and require the majority party to compromise. If a moderate member of the minority party offered support for a bill with changes, those concessions might be met if it meant bipartisan support.
In summary, the filibuster is undemocratic, and it doesn't accomplish what you think it does.
I cannot be called a bad guy when my team's name is The Good Guys™.
That's not at all applicable. Democracy is the antithesis of a dictatorship, by definition.
As a side note, the opposite is true - the Democratic party is the ruling party, the Republicans are the opposition. What you have a problem with is that the opposition has teeth to bite back with, you'd prefer if the Democrats were in Congress in numbers required to pass legislation completely unopposed. If that is not your intention, it is in effect what you're advocating for.
I referencing the broad electoral advantages the Republican Party arbitrarily has. It's not difficult to imagine the scenario I laid out with the Republican Party as the ruling party and the Democratic Party as the minority opposition party, despite the Democratic Party being much more popular. The anti-democratic system needs to be changed.
Scalia is dead and irrelevant to this conversation.
Scalia is completely relevant to the point that was made. I'm sorry he's an inconvenient stain on history for you, but he is a really good example of conservative legislation from the bench.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Biden can't open his mouth without a gaffe falling out of it, his speeches can be called many things, but they're definitely not boring. They're certainly good meme material, if nothing else.
Biden is boring, which is a good thing. The former president is the one who couldn't open his mouth without some insane nonsense and/or utter lie coming out.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Lol. The argument is "it's not fascism if we are forcing people to do the right thing".
I never came close to making that argument.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
the Supreme court is not only for dems to put people
Only one person said that members of a particular party weren't allowed to nominate people to the Supreme Court, and that person was Mitch McConnell, a Republican.
