Yeah, I wasn’t registering an objection as much as talking about it.
When the feds dictate something as far reaching and foundational as elections to the states, the legit concern is federal overreach, because our system is federal with any powers not specifically granted to the feds residing with the states.
By the same token the filibuster has been used to disenfranchise communities around the country since the late 1800s. That is also undeniable.
Nothing in the laws being passed today resembles voter disenfranchisement in the 1890s, or in the 1960s for that matter. That’s why I find the lurching to extreme rhetoric like Jim Crow 2.0 to be so counterproductive.
By and large I would favor passage of the law. The filibuster was established to enrich debate. To allow all senators to have their say, and for there to be spirited back and forth, as long as 60 senators (now that we have 50 states) vote to keep the debate open. Since roughly 100 years ago, the filibuster changed into something that cuts off debate altogether. I’d be happy to see the filibuster changed so that debate is extended, but there’s a mechanism once all senators have had their say for a majority vote.
I think that could actually be productive in the senate. What we have now exacerbates partisanship, especially in today’s toxic environment.
[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 01/21/2022 10:14AM]
|
(
In response to this post by TomGlansAski)
Posted: 01/21/2022 at 10:03AM