How does a party 'control' the Senate if they don't have a 2/3 majority?

Perhaps it is because the mainstream right has moved so far right that even their own judges are saying this is too far?

 

I keep hearing this. But I haven't seen any evidence of it. Got any?

 

There are numerous years where support was in the minority. Also Barrett wasn’t confirmed until November, the last poll was done in August. Do you believe how that was handled will impact this score at all?

Right, what Republicans did was unprecedented, what Democrats are discussing has precedent. I agree the two are not even comparable.

I agree with everything you just posted but am probably more pro-life and fiscally conservative on tax policy. I am against marriage as a legal institution though.

This goes back to my previous question — why was it not the straw that broke the camels back when Republicans did it?

 

It was really a question. I know compared to the rest of the world we are very conservative so maybe it is just Democrats have moved toward a more centrist position while Republicans have remained stagnant

 

Only if you look at one column. If you add the "great deal" and "fair amount" and put it as one column as those people are separated in order to make those two columns then there was no year in which they were in the minority.

As for Amy Barretts confirmation...It may affect it. But I don't think it will fall below 50%. SCOTUS's track record has shown that they are doing their best to be as impartial as they possibly can.

Except that what Republicans did is not unprecedented either. Both sides always try to get their picks in. Hence why Reed nuked the filibuster for the lower courts and then the Repubs did the same for SCOTUS. Reed set the precedent of ignoring the minority. Doesn't matter the reasoning.

Because Republican's are not trying to expand SCOTUS to purposely and explicitly counteract the opposing parties viewpoints. Yes, they wanted conservative judges on the panel. But they only went for it when a justice died or retired as has been the norm for well over a century, by both parties. Now Democrats are wanting to add to the court explicitly to "even out" the court. What do you think regular people are going to think of such a situation? Particularly when trust in Congress is less than 20%? There are two lines of thoughts that will occur, possibly even at the same time. 1: Shenanigans are in play here. 2: SCOTUS has been politicized and as such is on par with the other two branches now. Neither option is what one would call "optimal" or even "acceptable". SCOTUS has tried very hard to maintain an air of neutrality. If Dems add seats to the bench and then appoint more justices that air of neutrality will shatter.

 

He got a little free help.
West Virginia Governor Jim Justice Breaks with Joe Manchin, Calls for Large Stimulus Bill (newsweek.com)

 

That does not address the biggest problem. Biden is trying to shut down the coal mines and provide lower paying solar panel jobs.

 

That was one Hillary got right.
Those jobs (are there any left?) are all but gone.
Coal will be around for a long time, but why would you mine it when you can just plow out a mountain.

 

I strongly suspect they know more about it than you do.

 

About 52,000 are left. LINK: Coal Jobs Average income for a coal miner is $19.28/hr. LINK: Average income ~ Coal Average income for installing solar panels is $17.78/hr. LINK: Average income ~ Solar Energy System Installer

 

The average share of electricity generated from coal in the US has dropped from 52.8% in 1997 to 27.4% in 2018. In 2017, there were 359 coal-powered units at the electrical utilities across the US, with a total nominal capacity of 256 GW (compared to 1024 units at nominal 278 GW in 2000)

 

What else do I need to know?

 

The economics of coal mining.

 

An den? An what? Seriously though, folks say that like it's a flaw or an intentional attack against individuals in the opposition party. That kind of inherent tension and check to power was exactly what the Founders INTENDED. I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar but I've done a bit of reading in the Federalist Papers and those guys had one commonality between them. They intended for a central government to act VERY little and to be so circumscribed in that action that there was no way they'd amass too much power or be able to easily oppress the people.
I used to think that most of them would stroke out if they saw what this government has become. These days, I think they'd look around and see a VERY familiar pattern of petty, tyrant wannabes. Those horrible old white slave owners recognized to a degree that's missing today, that the philosophy of the enlightenment was TIMELESS. These men certainly had their flaws but they understood that human nature is unchanging. The dangers that surrounded them then are just as active today. The biggest difference, IMO, is the woeful lack of integrity today's "leaders" possess.
The petty games the parties play will always be there. Just as the Left loathes the Turtle, the Right despises that demonic drunk grandma. The thing that bothers me most about their behavior these days is that they don't even attempt to act like they want to be collegial. Pelosi basically admitted that since there is a new president, she'd cheerfully support a deal that Trump had offered several times to try to get money in the hands of folks that are seriously suffering right now.
Hell, he offered MORE than she was willing to settle for but she refused. A plague on ALL THEIR HOUSES.

 

Are you sure? My understanding was that Reid finally got sick of Mitch holding up Obama's choices for the Federal bench and decided to "exercise the nuclear option". He dumped the filibuster for judicial appointments other than for SCOTUS. Mitch was famously on record saying Reid would come to regret that move "and sooner than he thinks" IIRC. And Mitch decided if Reid could dispense with a time-honored tradition, so could he. THAT was the real nuclear option.
So, Reid changed the rules and rubber-stamped a lot of lifetime appointments to the Federal bench then Mitch used the same tactic to put Trump's nominees on SCOTUS. Notice the one-upmanship? Now that Reid's arrogance caused Schumer to be slapped down, Schumer is going to pack SCOTUS.
It's like a food fight except with very real casualties. If Schumer uses a simple majority to add several Liberal justices - let's not kid ourselves about lack of bias - he will have effectively seized power to interpret the Constitution as well as to pass laws with a bare majority.
My guess is the first law will be a severe infringement on 2A.
I can't begin to express how bad, even dangerous an idea that will be.
The closest analog I can imagine for the Left would be if Mitch grabbed that power and the Republicans unilaterally, with 50 votes and a tiebreaker, outlawed all abortion. See where this is headed? I sure hope these guys sober up before they drive us off a cliff.

 

You're probably right but don't underestimate Mitten's willingness to shank his own team. That guy is a real piece of work. Dropping the filibuster is a REALLY bad idea.

 

There is no sanity in government anymore on either side.

 

That was enlightening.

 

Are you claiming you know more about coal mining than the people who mine coal?

 

I don't need to know a lot once I know 80% of the coal jobs have disappeared in the last 10 years.

 

It may be more a factor of 3. In addition to Manchin, the two Senators from Arizona (Kelly and Sinema) are middle of the road moderate dems who support bipartisanship.

I personally think other than on appointments, Schumer would have a hard time getting that rule change through. As I stated yesterday, if it happens, it will become a permanent thing and the dems are not in a strong position in the midterms to hold or even grow their Senate numbers as there are too many key races in places where Biden underperformed.

 

That was not the issue. You were trying to claim you knew how to best mine coal.

 

And you disagree?
Why?
Surface mining is much cheaper.

 

I am not disagreeing with anything.
Don't you think that the experts who are doing the mining know which is the best method?

 

Then what pray tell are you doing?