Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathgod
By that logic, you could make the case that nothing should ever pass unless 100% of the house and 100% of the senate agree with the president on something. The more checks & balances, the better? 
Simply put, even without the filibuster, there are already plenty of checks & balances in the US government when it comes to passing legislation. The filibuster is an extra unnessesary one, which leads to virtually endless gridlock in Washington, frustration among the American people (feeling of "congress never gets anything done"), and for some reason only ever seems to serve republican interests. Can anyone point to me the last time the democrats used the filibuster to block any major republican-backed legislation? Hmmm... it only ever seems to serve one party's interests at the expense of the other... golly gee, I wonder why that is? It's almost like it was designed specifically as a mechanism for the minority to rule over the majority?
Time to get rid of this Jim Crow era relic and give the congress, elected by the American people, a chance to actually get some things done. |
I don’t see too many downsides at this point. But you need to get manchin and sinima on board.
I actually preferred needing the 60 votes for the Supreme Court. 60 votes makes for more reasonable picks.