HR 1 urgently needs to pass through filibuster

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,406
136
I'm basically discussing changing things that congress really wants to change. This assumes there is no filibuster and that the house/senate/presidency all want to do something that the courts are somewhat blocking them from doing. Having all the house/senate/presidency is not particularly rare and there are things like restructuring the EC for example that we really want to get done but aren't so easy with the courts in the way. Of course nothing will happen if congress doesn't want to change things and thats really much of the issue at hand. Government can't even get robo call legislation modernized at this time because they just don't have the time/knowledge/interest in doing these sorts of things. Our government seems to work decently well in emergencies but otherwise sucks ass. Some of those things yes are a bit ridiculous and definitely banana republic (but honestly we're kinda already a stones throw away from that anyway if one or two more scotus members die during republican terms in the presidency).

Biden could declare martial law but of course you need to military to enforce it and they may not. Simply arresting the SCOTUS and congress is unlikely to work and the people won't stand for it. However, congress passing a law that add term limits is completely legal and its also completely legal for them to undo laws they passed. In fact there is discussion right now of limiting terms to 10 years which would kick out a number of current SCOTUS judges right now. They could easily pass a law that kicks out all the current scotus judges using a term limit of 1 year, appoint new ones, and then remove the law they used to kick out all the scotus judges 11 months later. The only cost is establishing a precedent and hurting public faith in the SCOTUS. They could also easily pass a law that limits who is eligible for SCOTUS positions (lets say traffic fines, but I'm being silly here. You could do something more like "must have gone to a public law school" or "must have served in the military" or "cannot make more than X amount of dollars annually" which would eliminate all the scotus judges right now) and that would be totally legal.

Having a court system that specifically has supreme jurisdiction over an area is within congress' power. Congress has the power to set the US federal court system as it sees fit and the SCOTUS is the top court in the federal court system. They also can tell the SCOTUS what's in its jurisdiction vs not. If you actually look at the US federal court system its made up of tons of little courts that have different jurisdictions which are congressionally appointed. Certain cases go to certain courts. The SCOTUS has generally been given jurisdiction over everything and anything they want to rule on but that's by convention. Congress can for example say the SCOTUS has jurisdiction over everything except abortion law or everything except constitutional law which instead goes to this little court over here for final say. Even if the SCOTUS decided to challenge that law, it'd get really messy because they'd be the plaintiffs and they'd probably also just lose the case because legally there is nothing in the constitution really supporting them. Remember the 3rd branch of government is the entire federal court system, not the SCOTUS and the court system is setup by congress.

All I'm driving at is that we think of the SCOTUS as this stone like, rigid institution when the reality is that's mostly convention. There's actually very little in the constitution about the role of the SCOTUS and makeup and its largely just historical precedent that has gotten us where we are. The SCOTUS is quite malleable and the downside is mostly establishing the precedent of changing the SCOTUS for specific interests (if you do it, others will do it when they get a chance) and whatever public blowback you'll see from doing so.

I get your point that congress can change stuff including the Constitution.
What I am saying is if you can’t get a 2/3rds majority or get someone like Manchin along you will never get the remedies previously described, and if you had enough votes for those remedies you could likely pass anything you wanted anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,957
3,948
136
I saw that last night.
I was shocked at the support that WV has for voting rights. 79% vs 15%
They split it up between parties and its still pretty much equal accross Dems, Ind and Repubs.

Does Manchin's staff not show him poll numbers in his state for major issues like this? I don't understand why he doesn't care what his constituents think.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,710
16,003
136
I saw that last night.
I was shocked at the support that WV has for voting rights. 79% vs 15%
They split it up between parties and its still pretty much equal accross Dems, Ind and Repubs.

Yea. One conclusion. Manchin is dirty.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,710
16,003
136
Does Manchin's staff not show him poll numbers in his state for major issues like this? I don't understand why he doesn't care what his constituents think.

Cause fucker is in the Koch money man .. The mother effen jackpot man... The mooooother load, ganggang.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,609
48,167
136
Manchin isn't dirty, he's deluded.

At least insofar that thinking his maneuvering will lead to what he wants in terms of turning back the clock on how the senate functions while ignoring the polarization that threatens to magnify institutional flaws sufficiently as to threaten the very continuation of the republic.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,242
14,244
136
He's being paid. If a politician doesn't care about the majority opinions of his voters, he is being paid by someone not to.

Are you saying he's taking personal bribes? Because it isn't likely campaign contributions as those are irrelevant since he says he won't run in 2024.

I suspect there is more to the mystery of Manchin's behavior than this.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,957
3,948
136
Are you saying he's taking personal bribes? Because it isn't likely campaign contributions as those are irrelevant since he says he won't run in 2024.

I suspect there is more to the mystery of Manchin's behavior than this.

It could always be a guarantee of some cushy think tank gig or some shit.

Although a part of me hopes he's just hopelessly naive about the motivations of republicans. Selling the voting rights of the people for cash would be fucking vile.
 
Last edited:

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
I just think he knows he has to thread a needle in butt fuck west virginia to get elected as a democrat. This obstruction vs the dems just makes republicans nether bits tingle with glee. All this press coverage is *good* for him in his state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
I notice a lot a of appearances on Faux News, maybe going to be a " Fox News Contributor" as his new gig.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
Does injustice exist? Science reports that even monkeys know when they are getting screwed over. If I remember right, one monkey will stop playing a game in which he can see another monkey get a better reward than he gets for doing the same thing. I think this tells us that there is something genetic in us that rebels against discrimination. Let's say, then, the answer is yes, injustice, the capacity to feel discrimination is real.

When a political party refuses to act in the best professed interest of the majority will that be seen as unjust, say when they block laws that can fix the injustice. I would say that would be a situation that would provoke righteous rage.

What are the traditional reactions to injustice that have governed Western society and perhaps others. I think the first reaction is an eye for an eye. You do back to others what they do to you. This is what, I think, Republican intransigence is driving Democrats to do.

But we know that Christianity brought another answer, to turn the other cheek, to try to win the war by meeting injustice by showing what real justice looks like. This is what, I think, has made the West superior to eye for an eye cultures, by appeal to love and human empathy.

But what to do with the perpetrators of injustice keep beating you after you have turned the other cheek. Should one stick to tolerance in the face of folk who will show no mercy?

If I have this right about Islam, a religion that also advocated piece and were continually slaughtered, a different way of dealing with injustice of evil was put in place.

It is simply unnatural to endlessly take a beating or subject a culture to endless slaughter so there was a need for a third way and it seems to me that the principle in Islam goes like this. When faced with a remorseless evil you fight back with everything you have, work to destroy it without mercilessly, but only right up to the point where the source of evil repents and promises to reform. Then you must cease to fight and deal out mercy, giving the enemy just that one chance to live and make good on their promise to reform.

The Christian was is, in my opinion almost inhumanly hard, and the Old Testament way produces endless war. I see the compromise as making the most sense but it isn't easy either. It is hard to practice an eye for an eye and instantly switch to being Christian.

I think Manchin fancies himself a man who can take it on the chin, but I think he isn't very wise. I do not see how, given the actions and the words Republicans give that there is any doubt at all they will not change until they see the Wrath of God that is writ in the soul of monkeys who can use tools and brains when they get fucked over.

This post was written yesterday. Hope it is still to be posted because I failed to do so and is not a DP.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
I watched the liberal news tonight bemoaning their lack of ability to act without 60 votes and the seeming hopelessness to eliminate the filibuster and I had a thought that maybe what they should do is resign en masse and let the country suffer a Republican fate. Or maybe Blue States should pass laws that direct federal taxes owed by their citizens fto be paid instead to the state and filibuster any federal attempt to collect them.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,710
16,003
136
Yea, this is homing in on The Dick brothers


Side note, take note she says dark money is a problem on both sides. She is the maverick candidate maga morons needs but trump is the one they deserve… shrugs… cause they are some1 idiots
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,610
33,330
136
I watched the liberal news tonight bemoaning their lack of ability to act without 60 votes and the seeming hopelessness to eliminate the filibuster and I had a thought that maybe what they should do is resign en masse and let the country suffer a Republican fate. Or maybe Blue States should pass laws that direct federal taxes owed by their citizens fto be paid instead to the state and filibuster any federal attempt to collect them.
I suggested that the day Trump won in 2016. Still think it's the most viable path forward. This false hope from eeking out impotent majorities is just delaying our decline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
I suggested that the day Trump won in 2016. Still think it's the most viable path forward. This false hope from eeking out impotent majorities is just delaying our decline.
That’s right. It was doubtlessly you who infected me with that terrible idea. To keep hope alive, to shine light where there is darkness, to sing ‘We shall overcome’, or to let go of the rope and fall into blackness, that is the question. To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or, by opposing, end them.

Meh!

One thing I am fairly confident of, having defeated the Nothing, is that our future will arrive as a piano player plays in the manner in which holes are punched in It’s roll of paper, written there as it must be written according to the nature of our sleep.

Maybe do what you can and don’t and don’t worry about the rest.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,610
33,330
136
That’s right. It was doubtlessly you who infected me with that terrible idea. To keep hope alive, to shine light where there is darkness, to sing ‘We shall overcome’, or to let go of the rope and fall into blackness, that is the question. To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or, by opposing, end them.

Meh!

One thing I am fairly confident of, having defeated the Nothing, is that our future will arrive as a piano player plays in the manner in which holes are punched in It’s roll of paper, written there as it must be written according to the nature of our sleep.

Maybe do what you can and don’t and don’t worry about the rest.
Regardless of whether we fight or give up, the path forward is clear: we cannot allow Fox News watching to remain socially acceptable. These people need to understand that it is not compatible with a functional society.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,115
136
Regardless of whether we fight or give up, the path forward is clear: we cannot allow Fox News watching to remain socially acceptable. These people need to understand that it is not compatible with a functional society.
For sure, Fox News is messed up, but what are you suggesting? Some kind of censorship of a public facing media outlet?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
For sure, Fox News is messed up, but what are you suggesting? Some kind of censorship of a public facing media outlet?
I have a different question. Suppose you were carrying an illegal weapon because you wanted to take your child on a vacation to remote areas you were unfamiliar with, and you got stopped in traffic and saw a man walking toward you shooting people in cars as he passed. What would you do, knowing it is illegal to use that gun?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,610
33,330
136
For sure, Fox News is messed up, but what are you suggesting? Some kind of censorship of a public facing media outlet?
No, not at all. This needs to be a social movement by the people. "Oh, you watch Fox News? Your political opinion is worthless." -> "But, but, but ..." -> "Nope, not interested."
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,710
16,003
136
That’s right. It was doubtlessly you who infected me with that terrible idea. To keep hope alive, to shine light where there is darkness, to sing ‘We shall overcome’, or to let go of the rope and fall into blackness, that is the question. To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or, by opposing, end them.

Meh!

One thing I am fairly confident of, having defeated the Nothing, is that our future will arrive as a piano player plays in the manner in which holes are punched in It’s roll of paper, written there as it must be written according to the nature of our sleep.

Maybe do what you can and don’t and don’t worry about the rest.

We can concur that the probability streams that is our existence has convergences and nexuses right? So, how can we be sure this is not one such point. Order always replaces chaos and chaos always replaces order and it is in those junctions the next epoch is formed. This might be one. Shit may matter right now.
Do not go gentle into that good night
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,115
136
No, not at all. This needs to be a social movement by the people. "Oh, you watch Fox News? Your political opinion is worthless." -> "But, but, but ..." -> "Nope, not interested."
The ppl who need to be reached, won't be reached by us.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,115
136
I have a different question. Suppose you were carrying an illegal weapon because you wanted to take your child on a vacation to remote areas you were unfamiliar with, and you got stopped in traffic and saw a man walking toward you shooting people in cars as he passed. What would you do, knowing it is illegal to use that gun?
Why are various ppl around here always playing mind games rather than asking direct questions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,610
33,330
136
Are you saying he's taking personal bribes? Because it isn't likely campaign contributions as those are irrelevant since he says he won't run in 2024.

I suspect there is more to the mystery of Manchin's behavior than this.
A little more insight:
LMqZiHU.jpeg
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Ajay