HR 1 urgently needs to pass through filibuster

[gothuevos]

Personally I am concerned about the “legislator” can change the outcome if fraud is found or believed.
How many Trump humping Governors would change their 2020 results if it was within their power? I bet a startling amount.
Once that happens what is the response, hopefully the people would overwhelmingly vote for a replacement but once that become apparent what stops them from expanding the law to state elections? Then what is the response?

That's the thing, they will just continue to expand these kinds of laws where even the local dog catcher votes can simply be nullified if they don't like it.

That's what I mean when I say that voting will eventually "not matter.". Or rather, not be counted.

 

[cytg111]

Ask Manchin if McConnell owes him a personal favor.

 

[NWRMidnight]

That's the thing, they will just continue to expand these kinds of laws where even the local dog catcher votes can simply be nullified if they don't like it.

That's what I mean when I say that voting will eventually "not matter.". Or rather, not be counted.

Most of the changes that are taking place are to the electoral votes, meaning the legislation can change the electoral votes if fraud is found or claimed without proof. Simple fix is eliminate the electoral collage (this should have already been done). That will void almost all of the changes being made where theses state legislators have the say on the outcome of the election based on all the current changes being made.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Most of the changes that are taking place are to the electoral votes, meaning the legislation can change the electoral votes if fraud is found or claimed without proof. Simple fix is eliminate the electoral collage. That will void almost all of the changes being made where theses state legislators have the say on the outcome of the election.

Haha eliminate the EC and simple do not belong together.

 

[mect]

Joe Manchin writes editorial coming out against HR1, not because of anything actually in the bill that he disagrees with, but because republicans don't support it.

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/op_ed_commentaries/joe-manchin-why-im-voting-against-the-for-the-people-act/article_c7eb2551-a500-5f77-aa37-2e42d0af870f.html

This man has a serious brain defect.

The idea that this is going to increase the divide in this country is insane. The continued erosion of our democracy is what is going to increase the divide in this country.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Haha eliminate the EC and simple do not belong together.

Way to take what I said out of context. I never said eliminating the EC was simple. But the answer to stopping the GOP is.

 

[Sunburn74]

The idea that this is going to increase the divide in this country is insane. The continued erosion of our democracy is what is going to increase the divide in this country.

When 49/50 decently smart people say "hey let's do something" and you're the only holdout, either you know something, you're plain arrogant/have a god complex or are just dumb. With manchin it's gotta be one of the latter two.

 

[cytg111]

When 49/50 decently smart people say "hey let's do something" and you're the only holdout, either you know something, you're plain arrogant/have a god complex or are just dumb. With manchin it's gotta be one of the latter two.

If you are thinking about it, he falls into party line. McConnell's party line that is. You have to consider an option more, he is corrupt, has been corrupted, someone holds kompromat over him... that line of reasoning.
Why would someone fall into GQP party line if you have nothing to gain from it, to lose from NOT doing it?
As I've come to understand many R's wanna break line, but is afraid to, cause McConnell, Trump and his base...
Why would a democrat fall into GOP party line? Explain it to me. And assume he is not dumb as rocks.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Way to take what I said out of context. I never said eliminating the EC was simple. But the answer to stopping the GOP is.

Eliminating the EC would require a constitutional amendment. The process for an amendment is much harder than that of a simple bill. If we can't get a bill passed to change some voting laws, what makes you think we can get an amendment passed to change our electoral process? Personally, I would love to see our entire system overhauled to be ranked voting system, I think it would cause more people to be interested in voting, but because of that I think the odds of that happening are just a little under zero.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Eliminating the EC would require a constitutional amendment. The process for an amendment is much harder than that of a simple bill. If we can't get a bill passed to change some voting laws, what makes you think we can get an amendment passed to change our electoral process? Personally, I would love to see our entire system overhauled to be ranked voting system, I think it would cause more people to be interested in voting, but because of that I think the odds of that happening are just a little under zero.

Or just get enough states to sign the national popular vote compact - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
You don't necessarily have to eliminate the EC so much as change at how the votes are assigned.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Or just get enough states to sign the national popular vote compact - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
You don't necessarily have to eliminate the EC so much as change at how the votes are assigned.

Yeah, I was going to mention this but there are two huge obstacles.
First getting those last States to sign on
Second and I forgot the clauses but it surely will be challenged in court. There are two items that forbid States pooling EC voters and something else which I forgot but it has a strong argument against this idea.

 

[K1052]

Eliminating the EC would require a constitutional amendment. The process for an amendment is much harder than that of a simple bill. If we can't get a bill passed to change some voting laws, what makes you think we can get an amendment passed to change our electoral process? Personally, I would love to see our entire system overhauled to be ranked voting system, I think it would cause more people to be interested in voting, but because of that I think the odds of that happening are just a little under zero.

The country will implode into literal civil war long before an amendment to eliminate the EC gets passed. The structural problems are unresolvable, at least by the people in power.

On the current course it's hard to envision the US surviving as is though the next few electoral cycles.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Or just get enough states to sign the national popular vote compact - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
You don't necessarily have to eliminate the EC so much as change at how the votes are assigned.

Which is literally harder then getting HR1 passed. The majority of Americans have been for EC reform since at least 1940. Some version of the national popular vote compact has been worked on since at least 2000, and over that time has managed to gather only 15 states, and 36% of the EC votes. It is also worth noting that every single state that has signed on, or even allowed the concept of signing on to be debated, are deeply blue states. It can't happen because the very thing it looks to fix prevents it from happening.

 

[VRAMdemon]

The idea that this is going to increase the divide in this country is insane. The continued erosion of our democracy is what is going to increase the divide in this country.

A profile in chickenshit. This dumb shit awaits Republican cooperation like they just woke up today and have no recollection of anything.

He called this “the wrong piece of legislation to bring our country together.”

Translation: “The West Virginia Republican stooge believes HR1might slow the destruction of democracy in the USA and must therefore be stopped.”

 

[Sunburn74]

Which is literally harder then getting HR1 passed. The majority of Americans have been for EC reform since at least 1940. Some version of the national popular vote compact has been worked on since at least 2000, and over that time has managed to gather only 15 states, and 36% of the EC votes. It is also worth noting that every single state that has signed on, or even allowed the concept of signing on to be debated, are deeply blue states. It can't happen because the very thing it looks to fix prevents it from happening.

The other issue with the compact is that it's transient, meaning a new group of state legislature individuals can pull a state out.

Honestly the easiest way is to have the SCOTUS just rule that the EC is itself unconstitutional and unworkable because it violates other parts of the constitution (1 person 1 vote) and is a relic of older times. They could probably rule that Congress needs to create an amendment for all the states vote on for a new process.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The other issue with the compact is that it's transient, meaning a new group of state legislature individuals can pull a state out.

Honestly the easiest way is to have the SCOTUS just rule that the EC is itself unconstitutional and unworkable because it violates other parts of the constitution (1 person 1 vote) and is a relic of older times. They could probably rule that Congress needs to create an amendment for all the states vote on for a new process.

Haha current court being easy....
I know you said easiest.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Eliminating the EC would require a constitutional amendment. The process for an amendment is much harder than that of a simple bill. If we can't get a bill passed to change some voting laws, what makes you think we can get an amendment passed to change our electoral process? Personally, I would love to see our entire system overhauled to be ranked voting system, I think it would cause more people to be interested in voting, but because of that I think the odds of that happening are just a little under zero.

I never said it would be easy.. I never said it could happen. I only presented what the solution would be to stop the GOP and the changes they have made..

 

[fskimospy]

The idea that this is going to increase the divide in this country is insane. The continued erosion of our democracy is what is going to increase the divide in this country.

Exactly. What is currently eroding our democracy is that one party is convinced (maybe correctly) that it can achieve enduring minority rule.

There are literally states today like Wisconsin where on a state legislative level democracy already no longer exists. Despite it being a blue leaning swing state it was recently estimated democrats would need to win the state legislative vote by 20+ points to get a single seat majority.

 

[cytg111]

Manchin is pissing on his Bosses as well
2 minutes in. Watch them pollings.
Is McBitch is pulling his strings? Either way, Manchin is handing R's the house and the senate '22.

Poll shows Manchin wildly out of step with West Virginia voters on voting rights bill

Rachel Maddow shares details from a new poll that shows West Virginia voters of all political stripes are very supportive of the For The People Act to

www.msnbc.com

 

[Sunburn74]

Haha current court being easy....
I know you said easiest.

The members on the SCOTUS are the easiest thing to change in government right now.
You could pass a law that limits terms to 1 year and kick them all out and then undo the law shortly after.
You could pass a law that says if you have traffic fines you can't be on the court, arrest them all with traffic violations, and get them to step down whilst the investigation is ongoing.
You could pack the courts by adding members.
You could create a second court that has supreme jurisdiction in the specific area of you want (for a example, a court that specifically rules on constitutional issues) and fill it with people you like.

Its literally the easiest thing to change. There are very very few things that if congress wanted to do, the SCOTUS could actually really stop.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

this is mostly sarcasm

The members on the SCOTUS are the easiest thing to change in government right now.
You could pass a law that limits terms to 1 year and kick them all out and then undo the law shortly after.

Haha do that with the filibuster as it stands, good luck

You could pass a law that says if you have traffic fines you can't be on the court, arrest them all with traffic violations, and get them to step down whilst the investigation is ongoing.

Thats banana republic stuff right there. Why not have Biden order the military to arrest all Justices and all Republican Congress People too?
what if no traffic violations

You could pack the courts by adding members.
You could create a second court that has supreme jurisdiction in the specific area of you want (for a example, a court that specifically rules on constitutional issues) and fill it with people you like.

So a Constitutional amendment and adding a new branch to the courts is easier???
Adding members would require a 2/3rds majority

Its literally the easiest thing to change. There are very very few things that if congress wanted to do, the SCOTUS could actually really stop.

No it is not the easiest thing to change

 

[hal2kilo]

Manchin is pissing on his Bosses as well
2 minutes in. Watch them pollings.
Is McBitch is pulling his strings? Either way, Manchin is handing R's the house and the senate '22.

Poll shows Manchin wildly out of step with West Virginia voters on voting rights bill

Rachel Maddow shares details from a new poll that shows West Virginia voters of all political stripes are very supportive of the For The People Act to

www.msnbc.com

Hey, he must obey HIS masters. You know things go better with Koch.

Joe Manchin is opposing big parts of Biden agenda as Koch network presses him (cnbc.com)

 

[cytg111]

Hey, he must obey HIS masters. You know things go better with Koch.

Joe Manchin is opposing big parts of Biden agenda as Koch network presses him (cnbc.com)

Ooooh... its the Dick brothers... Lets see Manchin explain that one.


"
CNBC reviewed an episode of a Koch policy group Americans for Prosperity’s video series, along with ads crafted by the organization. The network specifically calls on its grassroots supporters to push Manchin, a conservative Democrat, to be against some of his party’s legislative priorities.
Americans for Prosperity launched a website titled West Virginia Values, which calls on people to email Manchin “to be The Voice West Virginia Needs In D.C. — Reject Washington’s Partisan Agenda.”
It then lists all of the items Manchin has promised to oppose, including the idea of eliminating the filibuster, the For the People Act and packing the Supreme Court. It then shows everything the group believes Manchin should oppose, including Biden’s infrastructure plan and the union-friendly PRO Act."

- Damn. Maybe he IS just plain old dum dum.

 

[Sunburn74]

this is mostly sarcasm


Haha do that with the filibuster as it stands, good luck


Thats banana republic stuff right there. Why not have Biden order the military to arrest all Justices and all Republican Congress People too?
what if no traffic violations

So a Constitutional amendment and adding a new branch to the courts is easier???
Adding members would require a 2/3rds majority


No it is not the easiest thing to change

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.

 

[esquared]

Manchin is pissing on his Bosses as well
2 minutes in. Watch them pollings.
Is McBitch is pulling his strings? Either way, Manchin is handing R's the house and the senate '22.

Poll shows Manchin wildly out of step with West Virginia voters on voting rights bill

Rachel Maddow shares details from a new poll that shows West Virginia voters of all political stripes are very supportive of the For The People Act to

www.msnbc.com

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.