The major questions doctrine, explained.

  • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ending the fillibuster would do a lot to make change, but in part the cery purpose of it is to force some measure of consensus by preventing a simple mahority from steamrolling the minority. When one side refuses ANY level of meaningful compromise however you get trades that are so massivly out of balance as to be counterproductive to the wishes of any progressive movement.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ending the fillibuster would do a lot to make change, but in part the cery purpose of it is to force some measure of consensus by preventing a simple mahority from steamrolling the minority.

      This is why I’m actually against removing the filibuster. Yes, Democrats would be able to make some short term gains in the process. But all it would lead to is the GOP just taking note of everything the Democrats did and just reversing it all on day one the minute they regain power. And then after that, we get to sit back and watch as they continue to steamroll over other rights as well.

      I really don’t want to live in a society where my rights are dictated by the whims of whatever party is in power and likely to change multiple times a decade.