Norm Ornstein is a mature genius with a considered point of view... he will be heard by Manchin... and the Senate will change... filibuster has a place, verbal filibuster, not the push button variety... cutting corners never helps... we must sweat the detail and turn on the lights. Justice Brandeis had it right: sunlight disinfects... wh…
Norm Ornstein is a mature genius with a considered point of view... he will be heard by Manchin... and the Senate will change... filibuster has a place, verbal filibuster, not the push button variety... cutting corners never helps... we must sweat the detail and turn on the lights. Justice Brandeis had it right: sunlight disinfects... when we speak about what we do and why we do it, we hang out there for those that hate. They need a target.
To tolerance... differences are exciting, not threatening... the sooner our sick nation learns that differences are healthy - and tolerance is a virtue... we will learn that the NEED TO BE DIFFERENT is worth a look, too... I am not for conforming, but it makes sense to listen to everyone... and use the views of others - and their habits... habit drives most of it - then think through all of it and ask this question: What are the significant differences among people? An ETS topic c. 1955.. when written essays were required for college admission. of course, they were read and judged by those that fear differences... As one that loves differences, I am challenged by conformity... but we all recognize the need for conformity, too. Ontological, no?
What exactly is the filibuster's place? The Senate can easily permit any and all minority opinions to be fully expressed in the course of debating proposed legislation. Each Senator can have his/her 10 minutes (or whatever) of glory, and then everyone casts the vote they have previously decided on and C-Span watchers get a good show and the majority gets its way. This is called democracy. The Senate could even add an extra period of debate if 40 Senators requested it, and that might be another 10 minutes of glory for each Senator and then... they all vote and the majority gets its way. This too would be democracy. This is what our country is all about and why our Constitution contains a bill of rights. Yes, the minority have their rights and must be heard, but the majority decides whether or not to pass a bill. Democracy again.
At some point the will of citizens who cast their votes in free and fair elections must prevail. For historical reasons involving the difficulty of getting slave states and non-slave states to agree to a unifying constitution, our system of government is already well-rigged for minority rule. The design of the Senate itself guarantees that voters from sparsely populated rural states have more power than voters from states with denser populations and larger urban areas. This is by Constitutional design and is most undemocratic. Do we really need to hang onto a mere Senate rule that makes our government even less democratic than the founding fathers intended? What possible good can come from a filibuster? What American ideal does it help us realize? About the only answer Republicans can give is "Under the circumstances the filibuster can enable us to keep Joe Biden and the Democrats from passing legislation their supporters want so that enough of them will be disappointed and vote GOP in 2022 that we can get power back and try to keep the Democrats from ever getting power again." How far we have fallen.
Norm Ornstein may well be a "mature genius" but his recent article in the Atlantic - while adorned with interesting historical tidbits - is limp, noncommittal. He seems to not know what he really thinks about the filibuster. What does he want our nation to become post-Trump?
Norm Ornstein is a mature genius with a considered point of view... he will be heard by Manchin... and the Senate will change... filibuster has a place, verbal filibuster, not the push button variety... cutting corners never helps... we must sweat the detail and turn on the lights. Justice Brandeis had it right: sunlight disinfects... when we speak about what we do and why we do it, we hang out there for those that hate. They need a target.
To tolerance... differences are exciting, not threatening... the sooner our sick nation learns that differences are healthy - and tolerance is a virtue... we will learn that the NEED TO BE DIFFERENT is worth a look, too... I am not for conforming, but it makes sense to listen to everyone... and use the views of others - and their habits... habit drives most of it - then think through all of it and ask this question: What are the significant differences among people? An ETS topic c. 1955.. when written essays were required for college admission. of course, they were read and judged by those that fear differences... As one that loves differences, I am challenged by conformity... but we all recognize the need for conformity, too. Ontological, no?
Nicely said. One needs a mix of conformity and difference. The question is, does our use of difference lead to advances (or restorations)?
I think of the "delta" from calculus, which refers to the change. And of acceleration/deceleration, which are changes in velocity.
Thing's gonna change. We're gonna get older. Can we find ways to age gracefully and marshal our powers to make a difference? Always a possibility.
Please, just make sure that the differences you make are "good trouble."
Walk it off.
Trying.
What exactly is the filibuster's place? The Senate can easily permit any and all minority opinions to be fully expressed in the course of debating proposed legislation. Each Senator can have his/her 10 minutes (or whatever) of glory, and then everyone casts the vote they have previously decided on and C-Span watchers get a good show and the majority gets its way. This is called democracy. The Senate could even add an extra period of debate if 40 Senators requested it, and that might be another 10 minutes of glory for each Senator and then... they all vote and the majority gets its way. This too would be democracy. This is what our country is all about and why our Constitution contains a bill of rights. Yes, the minority have their rights and must be heard, but the majority decides whether or not to pass a bill. Democracy again.
At some point the will of citizens who cast their votes in free and fair elections must prevail. For historical reasons involving the difficulty of getting slave states and non-slave states to agree to a unifying constitution, our system of government is already well-rigged for minority rule. The design of the Senate itself guarantees that voters from sparsely populated rural states have more power than voters from states with denser populations and larger urban areas. This is by Constitutional design and is most undemocratic. Do we really need to hang onto a mere Senate rule that makes our government even less democratic than the founding fathers intended? What possible good can come from a filibuster? What American ideal does it help us realize? About the only answer Republicans can give is "Under the circumstances the filibuster can enable us to keep Joe Biden and the Democrats from passing legislation their supporters want so that enough of them will be disappointed and vote GOP in 2022 that we can get power back and try to keep the Democrats from ever getting power again." How far we have fallen.
Norm Ornstein may well be a "mature genius" but his recent article in the Atlantic - while adorned with interesting historical tidbits - is limp, noncommittal. He seems to not know what he really thinks about the filibuster. What does he want our nation to become post-Trump?