Filibuster reform?
December 23, 2010
That’s what some are talking about.
I wonder. Over the long run, this would allow more liberal legislation to pass, when the Democrats have narrow majorities.
It’s irrelevant for the next Congress, where the Republicans will have a healthy House majority. It may even cut the GOP’s way after 2012, as almost every analyst expects them to take back the Senate in the next election.
This may open the way to repeal of Obamacare…
Update: Of course, you can have some fun with it –
Categories: Political philosophy, Political prognostication, USA! USA! USA!
I’m for filibuster reform. I don’t care what conservatives that want to stop Democrats say, the Constitution does not call for a supermajority to pass, nor repeal, legislation. I don’t like a de-facto supermajority requirement.
Beyond that, yes, we can repeal Obamacare much easier. It’ll make bad legislation easier to pass, but also to repeal.
Bad legislation is rarely repealed.
It happens now and then, I grant you, and it may happen more as our demographics go against the welfare state model, but that’s a risk I’d like to avoid taking.
See, it’s like you and your friends on a Palin nomination — maybe she can win, you think, but the odds are stacked against it.
You might be right. But I still have a philosophical objection that it creates a de-facto supermajority to pass legislation that simply isn’t in the constitution. I generally dislike supermajority requirements in general, barring certain things like Constitutional amendments. I REALLY don’t like it for everyday business.