Time to cut ties with Manchin

And why shouldn't he?
If he wants to be reelected, he has to do what is voters want, not what the party wants.
And that is the way it should be. This follow the party line crap is complete BS. The voters put them there, not the party.

 

Isn't that what our courts and judges are for?

 

the average isn't actually that often as Amendments 1-10 and 13-15 were basically added
almost together promoted by single events.

 

Because the actual political problem to be solved was to get both big state and small state buy-in for the Constitution. A structure to attract small state support could not be democratic.

 

Yes. I think an ombudsman wouldn't preclude appeal to the Courts, but be a supplement. In a way, the growth of administrative law serves a similar function. Scalia, whose brain I always admired even when I didn't agree with him, was a proponent of growing administrative law. And, today, many large companies have policies whereby you agree to "arbitration" for the settlement of employer-employee disputes. All of that gets into (in my opinion) the differences between European continental law and English common law, upon which our own system is based....but that's a long argument. My guess is that we also need more Courts than we now have to handle the growing population and diversity, plus the complexity of our society, all of which is bound to lead to an increasing amount of litigation.

 

I made a similar point many years ago regarding the HoR.
We have nearly doubled in size of population, I think, since the House went to 545.

 

The Democrats should act to restore the filibuster to an actual stand up and talk. The pain of the filibuster has been completely removed, erased. It takes so little real effort now, all that remains of the filibuster is its threat and power and none of the burden.

Put the burden back!

 

I agree with the former; disagree with the latter. I think you are defining "democracy" to be one person = one vote. I agree with that in regard to the electoral college, but not to a need to eliminate the Senate. The Senate was established in the supposed conversation between Jefferson and Washington, with Jefferson supposedly asking Washington why he supported a Senate and Washington supposedly replying that it was similar to pouring hot tea into a saucer to allow it to cool before drinking. The Senate, he supposedly said, served the same purpose as the saucer. I agree that the tyranny of the majority needs to be guarded against...but NOT replaced by a tyranny of the minority. IMO, the use of the filibuster has evolved into doing that.

 

It was the Senate chicken crap way out of actually having to make a stand.
And still not be held responsible for not passing any legislation.
They just throw up their arms and claim the other side won't let us vote.

 

Beware of "averages." Although, I'd add the passage of the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th amendments, in a seven year span, as well. And, 1-10 was promised ahead of ratification, in order to accomplish ratification, while 13-15 were to wrap up the problems left by an attempted coup (otherwise known to my southern friends and family as "The War Between the States."

 

As you wish. We disagree, although you keep making my point.

 

And, of course, I think you discount the differences in the "mixed sovereignty" of sovereign individual states with a unified sovereign nation. Both are democratic on separate paths and for different reasons. I will grant you that overall the Constitution is a conservative document, designed to protect certain vested interests. But, I wouldn't go as far as to claim the Senate was "undemocratic."

 

Maybe it was just a typo, as I'm sure you know this, but I'm just correcting that you meant 435, in the House. That number took effect in 2013, after the 2010 census (it was the 21st reapportionment of Reps, in the House); the reapportionment from the 2020 census is slated to go into effect after the next midterms, when the new Congress is seated in 2023.

Btw, I just verified, for myself, that those 3 additional electors-- above those matching the 435 Reps + 100 Senators-- to get the number to 538, come from Wash., D.C.

 

I think "undemocratic" in this context is a good thing. The founders were wise to include it.

 

No, what actually happens is that few bills that have just 49-55 votes get a floor vote at all so he does not have to defend those more controversial votes back home either in the Democratic primary or the general election. This is a no brainer for centrists like him. The filibuster works to discourage tough issues from reaching a vote so voters do not actually know how people like him ( or Collins on the other side of the aisle would have voted and there is no accountability.

 

Those are very good points. I've wondered why Manchin doesn't switch parties. He's pretty popular, so, he's probably fine either way. I think you nailed it though, he's a West Virginian first and foremost, in a traditionally Democrat State that the Democrat Party has left. As Ronald Reagan so famously said: "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me!" In his heart, I suspect that Joe Manchin still believes in the Democrat Party that he grew up with, but, that's a much different party than one we see today.

I don't know quite what to make of Democrats today. It seems to be 3 groups or so pulling in different directions that don't seem like each other that much, and none of the 3 groups are pro 2A and pro-life like Joe Manchin.

I don't think that Joe Manchin has given up on the Democrat party. We'd certainly welcome him into the GOP, and that fine Democrat Senator from AZ, too.

 

I have no problem with cautious debate on legislation and the "cooling process" of a limited filibuster. It is only when it begins killing legislation a majority favors does it cross the line into minority rule...which IS undemocratic. And, of course, the "founders" didn't include it at all...there was no rule allowing for unlimited debate, not was such ever intended.

 

Because some times one is called upon to think of the country first and not one's self. Not by way of the obscene jingoism of the Orange Fraud, but by actually making personal sacrifices for the common good.

 

It is what Washington intended by his "saucer" remark. And blocking legislation favored by the majority is exactly the point. The majority can either gather enough strength to override, or amend their proposal to attract support from the minority.

 

Nonsense. Once the tea has cooled, you drink it. There was no intention of allowing minority rule. If they'd wanted a super-majority to end debate, they would have written it into the Constitution.

 

Why would any state go backwards and make redistricting a partisan endeavor again? Why would the residents of any state favor the undemocratic practice of cheating to win majority control in their legislatures as Repubs apparently do?

 

The Senate was empowered to make its own rules. And tea that has "cooled" may not be the same tea at all. The majority always has the power to modify a proposal to win more support from the minority.

 

It's not cheating. It's simply a prescribed legal process.

 

We'll see if the Democrat Senate majority has the courage to do away with the filibuster, which IMO is unconstitutional. I wouldn't look to SCOTUS to take action. Roberts has clearly shown his strong belief in the separation of powers doctrine and would not, IMO, want to mess with a decision on Senate rules, any more than he wanted to mess with State legislatures over gerrymandering.

The best course might be to appeal to the few moderate Republicans in the Senate, to off-set Manchin's desertion. [I don't think Manchin sided with Democrats or Republicans...he sided with "rural America"...a side that is still rapidly disappearing.]

 

That's why I call the fake fillibuster the work for the Cowards in Senate. They can claim fillibuster without doing a thing, not have to make a vote and just point fingers.

Bring back the talk filibuster and make them actually filibuster. Be Senators with a pair and not Cowards as they are now.