Current Events > RNC censures Cheney and Kinzinger. Arizona Dems censure Sinema.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/04/rnc-censures-liz-cheney-adam-kinzinger-for-investigating-jan-6-pro-trump-riot.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/22/arizona-democrats-censure-sen-kyrsten-sinema-for-blocking-voting-rights-bill.html



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1FN047_LT0

I don't think there is anything amusing about the increasing extremism of the two major political parties.

A lie. I do. But not in a mirthful way.

At least the AZ Dems had a good reason.

Solar_Crimson posted...

At least the AZ Dems had a good reason.

Yeah, no. They're the same as the RNC.

I think it's wrong to suggest the censuring of members for speaking out against the Capitol Riot and the censuring of someone who is helping to stonewall legislation expanding voting rights are equivalent in any meaningful way.

atmasabr posted...

I don't think there is anything amusing about the increasing extremism of the two major political parties.

The extremism of pro voting rights?

Antifar posted...

I think it's wrong to suggest the censuring of members for speaking out against the Capitol Riot and the censuring of someone who is helping to stonewall legislation expanding voting rights are equivalent in any meaningful way.

I think it's wrong to distinguish between one effort to defend a longstanding democratic institution in congress and another effort to defend a longstanding democratic institution. Especially when in both cases the motivation for attacking it, far from being for the best interests of the country as a whole, is naked partisan self-interest.

Ryangrad posted...

The extremism of pro voting rights?

Huh?

Who's being deprived of the right to vote? As the US Supreme Court pointed out in striking down federal restrictions on changes in state voting laws, there being a measurable negative impact on a 1% slice of the population (the actual change in people who vote because of a law) is nowhere close to a deprivation of the right to vote.

atmasabr posted...

Yeah, no. They're the same as the RNC.

Not at fucking all. The rnc is literally because they didn't go along with lunatic conspiracy theories of election fraud.

Honestly neither of these seem like proper uses of the tool. Cheney and Kinzinger got censured for telling the truth while Sinema got censured for a disagreement on legislative procedure that she informed the party of months in advance (it's not like how Manchin lied about supporting BBB to get his own shit passed before killing the bill; Sinema was always upfront that she wasn't going to change the filibuster for major legislation).

Heineken14 posted...

Not at fucking all. The rnc is literally because they didn't go along with lunatic conspiracy theories of election fraud.

And Sinema because she's not going along with eliminating the filibuster.

Heineken14 posted...

The rnc is literally because they didn't go along with lunatic conspiracy theories of election fraud.

And the Arizona Democratic party has done the same literally because Krysten Sinema, while she is going along with lunatic conspiracy theories of voter suppression, isn't going so far along with it that she believes such sweeping changes in election laws can be done with razor-thin majorities and by changing the rules of voting.

Isn't that something? Passing a federal election law, by changing the rules in how Congress votes.

atmasabr posted...

longstanding democratic institution

The filibuster is not a democratic institution, and its current use isn't all that longstanding.

The endgame of this election laws fight, is going to be states realizing that there is no obligation to have a popular vote for president.

Hoodroar posted...

Honestly neither of these seem like proper uses of the tool. Cheney and Kinzinger got censured for telling the truth while Sinema got censured for a disagreement on legislative procedure that she informed the party of months in advance (it's not like how Manchin lied about supporting BBB to get his own s*** passed before killing the bill; Sinema was always upfront that she wasn't going to change the filibuster for major legislation).

A little more to the point, they're not being censured for being on the extremes of where the country is politically. They're being censured for being with the center. "With" the center, I can't even say Sinema or Cheney are in the center. But they're with the majority--the majority of the country that thinks something so disturbing happened after the November 2020 election that it was impeachable, the majority of the country that would be perfectly happy if Congress did nothing on election law and does not want Congress to change its rules.

atmasabr posted...

the majority of the country that would be perfectly happy if Congress did nothing on election law

This majority?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/new-polls-suggest-broad-support-democrats-voting-rights-bills-n1277837

Antifar posted...

The filibuster is not a democratic institution, and its current use isn't all that longstanding.

It's a democratic tool, and it's one both Democrats and Republicans will sorely miss when it's gone.
Remember what happened last time? Harry Reid exercised the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule for presidential nominations, and then Mitch McConnell used Harry Reid's tactic to end the debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.
It's happened before, and it'll happen again when the filibuster is gone: the Democrats will get what they want by a slim majority today, only to be undone by Republicans by a slim majority tomorrow. This will destabilize our democracy and system of laws and create more acrimony and zero-sum politics.

Antifar posted...

The filibuster is not a democratic institution, and its current use isn't all that longstanding.

You are conflating democratic with majoritarian.

A democratic institution, in order to remain strong and stable, requires means of recognizing the rights of majorities, large minorities, and small minorities in order to avoid sinking into the tyrannies of oligarchs and mobs. The talking filibuster is a means of recognizing the rights of small minorities, and the cloture threshold is a means of recognizing the rights of large minorities against the rights of the majority.

As for its current use not being that longstanding, the 60 vote cloture threshold dates to 1975, which is before I was born. Before then it had been 2/3 since 1917. I don't think that 7 vote difference is in any way significant for the purpose of this discussion.

I think regardless of what you think about the respective causes, a state party censuring a member is "more appropriate" than the national party doing so.

atmasabr posted...

A democratic institution, in order to remain strong and stable, requires means of recognizing the rights of majorities, large minorities, and small minorities in order to avoid sinking into the tyrannies of oligarchs and mobs.

Simple solution: 75% majority to pass any law. 33.33% minority to repeal any law.

atmasabr posted...

the majority of the country that thinks something so disturbing happened after the November 2020 election that it was impeachable, the majority of the country that would be perfectly happy if Congress did nothing on election law

These seem contradictory.

atmasabr posted...

As for its current use not being that longstanding, the 60 vote cloture threshold dates to 1975, which is before I was born. Before then it had been 2/3 since 1917. I don't think that 7 vote difference is in any way significant for the purpose of this discussion.

But it was never used on its current scale - to de facto require all legislation meet a 60 vote threshold - until the past 20 years or so.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/6/8/AAWHm8AAC5cQ.png

I would argue that the bicameral legislature and a separately elected executive are more than enough chokepoints on the public will as constructed, without the imposition of a supermajority requirement for legislation. There isn't a single state government with an equivalent to that, and for good reason.

Antifar posted...

This majority?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/new-polls-suggest-broad-support-democrats-voting-rights-bills-n1277837

August 2021? I dismissed rebuttal articles from September and October 2021 due to being outdated.

Substantively, a progressive group asked if voters would support the idea.

Ask the level of dissatisfaction if nothing happened.

Or better yet, ask a more fair and balanced version: ask what voters care about the most in the next election.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2022/01/14/voting-rights-and-public-opinion/?sh=622944b63650

January 2022.

An online Morning Consult/Politico poll released this week asked registered voters what the top priority for Congress should be in this area. Twenty percent said reforming Congress role in counting Electoral College votes, 22% said expanding oversight of states changes to voting practices, and 26% expanding voting access in federal elections. But the top response, given by 32% of those surveyed, was none of the above should be a priority for Congress.

There are several possible reasons for the none of the above response. First, Americans are clearly focused on issues such as inflation and coronavirus. Just 6% in the latest AP/NORC poll volunteered voting laws, voter fraud, or voting issues as the top problem the government should be working on in 2022.

Second, most Americans have not been paying much attention to the debate on the legislation. The latest NPR/Ipsos poll explored public awareness of various voting reforms included in the legislation without mentioning the legislation by name. Fifty-three percent said they were very or somewhat familiar with the proposals to allow any eligible voter to vote by mail. This was the only issue tested that showed majority awareness. Forty-four percent were familiar with state proposals reducing access to absentee ballots, limiting early voting times, or reducing the number of voting locations. Forty-one percent were familiar with proposals standardizing voting rules across states, 39% with state legislatures changing election laws to give them the power to determine election outcomes, 36% with state legislatures limiting the independence of elected election officials, and separately, with proposals moving redistricting authority to nonpartisan commissions. Finally, 32% were familiar with proposals to give the vice president the right to decide which electoral votes should be counted. Democrats were more familiar than Republicans with each of these, but the low levels of overall familiarity dont suggest a groundswell of public interest.

I stand by my claim.

Hoodroar posted...

These seem contradictory.

Despite this board's reputation, it's much sharper than Politics.

But not that deadly. I'm talking about President Trump's attempts to convince a state Attorney General, legislators from another state, his Vice President, and a shadowy conspiracy behind a violent mob to overturn an election through illegal means by nothing more than his say so.

I could admit that I'm talking about "expanding oversight of states changes to voting practices and expanding voting access in federal elections". I could even eke out a win if I did that. I could very well admit that. But the contradiction does not beg such a thing.

Antifar posted...

But it was never used on its current scale - to de facto require all legislation meet a 60 vote threshold - until the past 20 years or so.

I think that's probably because the two parties were closer to each other ideologically until the past 20 years ago.

I would argue that the bicameral legislature and a separately elected executive are more than enough chokepoints on the public will as constructed, without the imposition of a supermajority requirement for legislation. There isn't a single state government with an equivalent to that, and for good reason.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/here-are-50-of-the-dumbest-laws-in-every-state/ss-BB1dDxdE

https://freiwaldlaw.com/blog/50-dumbest-laws

I would be interested to know what that good reason is.

Because none of them, nor any other country's legislature, thought it was a good idea to have a supermajority requirement for passing legislation, an impediment that can only serve to make the government less responsive to public will. The carveouts to the filibuster (for judges, for budget reconciliation) are an admission that it's an obstacle to basic governance: simply getting anything done that isn't a military budget. I think in the long run it is unsustainable for the federal government to be so incapable of addressing our non-military problems.

Sinema's argument that its existence promotes bipartisanship couldn't be further from the truth. Why would a minority party go along with their opposition's bill, or make alterations to make it more amenable to them, when they can stall it just as easily?

Antifar posted...

But it was never used on its current scale - to de facto require all legislation meet a 60 vote threshold - until the past 20 years or so.

The obvious answer here is to demand that filibusters be actual filibusters, all Jimmy Stewart style.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/8/9/AAEhCpAAC5cl.jpg

Questionmarktarius posted...

The obvious answer here is to demand that filibusters be actual filibusters, all Jimmy Stewart style.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/8/9/AAEhCpAAC5cl.jpg

This nation is in dire need of people like Jimmy Stewart. The Greatest Generation.

Antifar posted...

Because none of them, nor any other country's legislature, thought it was a good idea to have a supermajority requirement for passing legislation, an impediment that can only serve to make the government less responsive to public will.

At the risk of sounding like someone who sniffed too much Federalist, I think the federal government should be less responsive to public will than the state governments.

I am satisfied with your reasoning. And it occurs to me that you are defending state structures that are very majoritarian and responsive to the public will, in a discussion about laws by the federal government that will take power away from those very states that are so responsive to the public will.

Sinema's argument that its existence promotes bipartisanship couldn't be further from the truth. Why would a minority party go along with their opposition's bill, or make alterations to make it more amenable to them, when they can stall it just as easily?

I disagree with your argument that stalling a bill is not a function of bipartisanship. It may be over the short term. But over the long term, neither party being able to pass their pet bills when they reach the majority increases the chances that the end result will be closer to the interests of both parties.