As Republicans near winning every level of government, do Democrats still endorse ending the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court?

[ozro]

I agree with you. It is an unbelievable act of hubris to state that only THEY can be in congress, is it not! Not to mention-------->how unlikely is it that THEY vote themselves term limits???????????

You know, I understand that even mentioning Hitler sends your thread in the tank, but I must bring him up, to point out this truth------->

When Germany was collapsing, all of his Reich Marshalls tried to assume control.......from Himmler, to Goering, etc. Why? The mighty Reich had already been basically destroyed. We should all ask ourselves, who/whom would want to take control of a dying country on the brink of chaos.

ANSWER--------->people with HUBRIS like Joe, Kamala, and their handlers...........and do not think these people only reside on the Left. But the real question is-------->who has the highest probability of escaping the problems!

Is Trump right/correct? I dunno, but what I do know is that these people have been controlling this country for 12 out of the last 16 years. When was it the best, ask yourselves that question!

If/when you ask yourself that 1 question, everything changes, it really does. To try and proclaim Trump screwed Obama for years before he was elected, and screwed Biden for years after Biden was elected, is an exercise is laughable politics. Understand all, Trump is also responsible for Kamala FAILING, lol.

If you actually believe what the Left is telling you, then you really are a victim.........a victim of the Lefts nonsensical bullsh**!

Not my thread.

 

[para bellum]

Term limits for Article III judges and congresscritters would require a Constitutional amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

You a union worker Winger? If you are, how many years of service before you can you retire? And, how old before they can FORCE you out!

My dad was a union man

I think unions would oppose forced retirement unless there is a physical reason you can’t work beyond a certain age.

What bothers me is that SCOTUS has become political. Used to be a nomination was unanimously approved regardless if it was a Conservative or Liberal. Now it has become partisan.

To combat that, Justices are appointed not on their legal qualifications but because of their political ideology and young age.

 

[imawhosure]

My dad was a union man

I think unions would oppose forced retirement unless there is a physical reason you can’t work beyond a certain age.

What bothers me is that SCOTUS has become political. Used to be a nomination was unanimously approved regardless if it was a Conservative or Liberal. Now it has become partisan.

To combat that, Justices are appointed not on their legal qualifications but because of their political ideology and young age.

Again, your displeasure along with most of every one else's can be addressed by putting strict limitations on when they can enter, and when they have to leave.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I am sure they do since several here have argued vehemently to do so.
What was the plan? I am too lazy to go search for all those threads I read. Something like 51 votes can ditch the filibuster, then we can shut an those pesky lengthy debates.
Add 4-6 justices and impose an age limit.
Oh I am certain they still support these actions.

The Constitution's Crowned Clowns

The filibuster is a silly teenage prank. Congress likes to humiliate us by showing how it can get away with such immature antics and smirk at us for still supporting the exclusivist form of government that empowers such bratty behavior.

 

[TimFitz]

Just curious is Democrats still want to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court?

How about ending the Electoral College as Trump leads nationally and there's a chance Harris could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college?

Vote now.

It seem far more likely to me that if Trump wins again, it will be precisely because he was able to pull the same inside straight he accidentally pulled in 2016.

I doubt that he has any chance of winning the po-ulnar vote.

Before this year’s primaries, Donald Trump had never won 50 plus % in any state (or country ) he ran in. winner take all laws propelled him to pluralities which were counted as absolute victories.

I think proportional award of Electoral votes is necessary.

I also think the time has long passed for the Senate to abolish the current filibuster rule, and replace it by bringing back the “talking filibuster”

 

[TimFitz]

I think that both would require constitutional amendments. Good luck on that.

I wouldn’t wast sleep over it.

 

[martybegan]

Just curious is Democrats still want to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court?

How about ending the Electoral College as Trump leads nationally and there's a chance Harris could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college?

Vote now.

While I'm no democrat, I support neither.

What I do support is "making the filibuster great again", make people go out there and speak for hours on end.

 

[Dragonlady]

Just curious is Democrats still want to end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court?

How about ending the Electoral College as Trump leads nationally and there's a chance Harris could lose the popular vote but win the electoral college?

Vote now.

Trump doesn't lead anywhere, and it appears possible that Democrats will sweep this election, not just nationally, but in many states as well. The Great Conservative "supply side" experiment in the USA is about to end, as Democrats continue to stabilize the economy and increase both wages and wealth for the working and middle class.

Trump has succeeded in destroying the Republican Party, but Americans are not going to allow him another chance to become dictator. Lying about the polls, and claiming victory when he loses won't work a second time, because the forces of democracy, including former Republican leadership, foreign policy leadership, and military leadership, are arrayed against him.

Another attempt at lying of a "stolen election" will find Trump jailed, and very quickly. He hasn't been sentenced in New York yet. Trump has no military to back him in the event he tries it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Expect immediate legislation in January to expand the Supreme Court to 13 members, and expect the D's to oppose it with every fiber in their beings.

Bury Marbury

Take away SCROTUS's arbitrary and usurped power to interpret the Constitution and only give them the right to determine jurisdiction. For example if the people burn a state's flag, it could determine that Congress can only legislate about the national flag, but SCROTUS can't dictate to us whether either violates free speech or not.

Chief Just-Us Marshall interpreted the Constitution as giving SCROTUS the right to interpret the Constitution, which is the fallacy called "Begging the Question." The second fallacy was ignoring the fact that his opinion was obiter dictum. It was a digressive commentary that had nothing to do with deciding the case and was therefore non-binding.

Showing the true snarky character of these entitled brats, the first thing they did after declaring their dictatorship was to refuse to use it in this case.

 

[rightwinger]

While I'm no democrat, I support neither.

What I do support is "making the filibuster great again", make people go out there and speak for hours on end.

Filibuster used to occur in rare instances and you had to physically filibuster

60 votes is now required for all legislation to proceed to a vote where only 51 votes is required

 

[martybegan]

Filibuster used to occur in rare instances and you had to physically filibuster

60 votes is now required for all legislation to proceed to a vote where only 51 votes is required

Which to me isn't a filibuster.

That being said, I wouldn't limit it to one turn per person, someone can come back say 2-3 days later and start over, but there has to be some effort involved.

It would still mitigate excessive laws, but at least you would have to DO something to make it a 60 vote hump.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Democrats like to point out when they win the popular vote without thinking that the presidential canidates do not run a campaing to win the popular vote.

The candidate's run a campaign to will electoral college votes.

If it was a popular vote, candidate's campaigning would be much different.

Much Ado About Nothing

As usual, the rulers' scripted Netrix misses the point. In a society not suffering from thought-control, this wouldn't have been an issue at all, because neither Gore nor Hillary got over 50% of the popular vote. Pluralities don't count; there were no PV winners, so if that were what decided the election, both results would have gone to the House, where the Republicans would have won in a landslide.

Since the hired media have created such ignorant masses, it must be explained that each state would get only one vote there.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Actually....I think that could get support from both parties.
I would think term limits for senate and house seats could get public support, but I don't think the senators or representatives would like it all.

The Priority of the Preamble

Instead, what we need are limits to legislative power. I'm not talking about the elitist Constitution, which like the Bible that Americans are brainwashed to relate it to, can be interpreted every which way. I'm talking about giving us, the people, veto power over legislative (and judicial) acts.

 

[g5000]

Democrats have so many agendas to pass.

Are they more than Agenda 2025?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Trump doesn't lead anywhere, and it appears possible that Democrats will sweep this election, not just nationally, but in many states as well. The Great Conservative "supply side" experiment in the USA is about to end, as Democrats continue to stabilize the economy and increase both wages and wealth for the working and middle class.

Trump has succeeded in destroying the Republican Party, but Americans are not going to allow him another chance to become dictator. Lying about the polls, and claiming victory when he loses won't work a second time, because the forces of democracy, including former Republican leadership, foreign policy leadership, and military leadership, are arrayed against him.

Another attempt at lying of a "stolen election" will find Trump jailed, and very quickly. He hasn't been sentenced in New York yet. Trump has no military to back him in the event he tries it.

Your post didn’t age well.