So Now They Want To Get Rid Of The Senate

[Me.]

Hyperbole on my part for sure....mostly. But there is now a steady drumbeat... what we're hearing over and over is that the House is so unhappy with the Senate. McConnell needs to go. They need to/have to change those rules and so on and so forth.

If we don't watch out they will jerry-rig us right out of the Senate as we know it.

[yallerdawg]

1. Two branches of government answer to us...

every 2, 4, 6 years.

The "Founding Fathers" were ever fearful of the "tyranny of the majority" and "mob rule."

The Constitution codified supermajorities for a number of big issues that could come before the House and the Senate.

The Senate has been the place where the legislative branch has asked, "Do we really want to do this?"

THAT is a damn good thing.

[Me.]

3. Bet They Never Even Considered the 'tyranny of the minority'

or the less is more government

[Wounded Bear]

4. I believe they are counting on it...

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. They can be as unhappy as they want.

The Senate isn't going away.

If Trump actually had any ability to plan, he'd appoint two or three Democrat Senators from states with Republican governors to some other office, so that they'd be replace by Republicans. Lucky for all of us he's not up to that kind of strategic thinking.

Of course, one would hope that these hypothetical Senators would politely refuse the offered posts.

[karynnj]

5. Their comments are ridiculous and pathetic

One TX representative spoke of how Trump had an "electoral landslide" and it is wrong that he can't get all of his top campaign promises. Now, "electoral landslide" is said because he lost the popular vote, but in fact, his electoral college win was only bigger than the two W electoral college wins (that both should have been loses - if Fl 2000 and Ohio 2004 were fair elections).

Not to mention, in addition to Trump being elected, ALL of these legislators were elected and they have the right and responsibility to follow their own conscience and/or the views of their constituents. NOTHING in our democracy says that ALL people of a party must foot 100% in lockstep with the President. In fact, they combined are a co equal part of government.

Not to mention, he also said a few Senators went against the House of Representatives. In fact, the House bill passed by the skin of its teeth and - as written - it was DOA in the Senate. In the Senate, the bar was far lower than it was in 2009. We needed 60 Senators for the ACA. They only needed 50 of the 52 Republican Senators. In fact, the results in BOTH houses is that even with threats and bribes and party loyalty being pushed, all of their bills end up below or at 50%. In 2009, in addition to respecting the rules, many Democrats spoke of it being reasonable to require more than a simple majority to change a sixth of the economy.

[maxsolomon]

9. the ACA was passed using Reconciliation

a simple majority.

Kennedy's Brain Cancer destroyed the 60-vote majority Obama had earned.

[karynnj]

13. ACA was passed by the Senate with 60 votes the day before Christmas in 2009 the House passed as is

- not changing a comma. This was the FIRST bill Obama signed - and it was that bill that created the ACA.

What you are referring to is a smaller package that made some changes to ACA that the House wanted and it addressed student loans. That bill passed under reconciliation and amended a few details of the ACA. President Obama signed that bill in the same bill signing as the first one.

The Republicans spent years claiming we rammed the bill through under reconciliation after Scott Brown was elected to the MA seat that Kennedy vacated. ( It does show how important it was that Kerry led in calling on MA to amend its rules and appoint an interim Senator until the election happened. It was awkward as MA had changed the law from the governor appointing a Senator in 2004. Had Senator Kirk not been there for the votes in Nov/Dec of 2009, we would have been one short because the MA seat would have been vacant.)

[maxsolomon]

14. thanks for the correction

I guess propaganda works

[karynnj]

15. It really does -- and the media absolutely did a poor job in making that distinction

I suspect that the reason they claim that was there several weeks after Brown won that the media and even some Democratic legislators said that his election killed it. Rahm Emanuel, who was Obama's CoS at that point, was actively talking about trying something less ambiguous.

Many people were saying the House would not pass the Senate bill without change. To me, that seemed incredibly strange even though the House bill was more progressive. It seemed that if cast as the choice is the status quo with no bill passing both Houses or a not perfect bill that did big things for the good passing and being signed into law -- it was a no brainer. Even though there were no legal strings between them, I think that many voted for the bill with the knowledge that the second bill would make the small tweaks they wanted.

I suspect that had Obama signed them a week - or even a day - apart and celebrated that ACA passed the FIRST day, it might have affected people's memories. In fact, the signing of the second bill could have been celebrated as greatly fixing problems with college loans. I wonder if that small difference in PR might have made the Republican's calls that it was unfair harder. (They would have been left with complaining that no Republicans voted for it -- even those hypocrites who pre Obama had been sponsors on reasonably similar bills.)

[MichMary]

6. To be fair,

a few years ago, people right here on DU were saying that we should do away with the Senate.

[Me.]

10. Why Do We Need To Be Fair On This?

Apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned. People were upset with the Senate for the outright obstruction such as not letting PBO choose a SC justice. What was their mandate....right... their main focus was to get rid of the president. And I don't remember the wanting to be getting rid of the institution, but the Republican members of it. What the House is upset about is that the will of the majority, in this case, prevailed.

[gopiscrap]

12. I would never say that, I would just say that:

we need to do away with republicans

[Soxfan58]

7. A slow coup

Is still a coup. We need a sweeping dem take over of both houses in 2018. Or we are screwed

[maxsolomon]

8. I've wanted to burn it to the ground for decades

It's profoundly undemocratic, over-representing rural voters by huge margins. The 60-vote standard for Cloture is arbitrary and voluntary. It stops any meaningful progress. Thank Christ is also stops some (not all) regression.

But with the Gerrymandering after the 2010 Census, the House is only marginally less so.

Short version: America is fucked.

[standingtall]

11. The far right has been attacking the idea of democratically elected Senators for years

trying to roll back the clock to when state legislatures appointed U.S. Senators.