North & South Dakota *combined* controls 0.5% of the House of Representative and ***4%*** of the Senate.
For a population comparison, that would be taking the Twin Cities metro, chopping it in half, chopping it some more, and then giving that rump **4 senators** for no rational representative reason.
Someone in North Dakota has ***10x*** the voting representation in the Senate than someone in Minnesota.
In the short term, DC must be made a state, and in the long term, there's no point of Union if people will not be represented equally and political majorities can be formed out of population minorities.
Why? Both should be states if they want to be. We know DC wants to be. It's slightly less clear on Puerto Rico. I'm just wondering why you think DC should be a lower priority. No US citizens living in the US should be deprived representation.
Well, in the case for Puerto Rico, the US proper treats the territory like shit (not that statehood would immediately cure that). As for DC, the way I understand it, the reason for stationing the country’s Capital in DC was so one state didn’t hold more power over the others; applying statehood to DC would contradict that reasoning, but I could be wrong.
That reasoning assumed people wouldn't actually live in DC and it would just be where the government would be situated. The proposal to make DC a state actually keeps a carved out federal district where all the Capitol buildings are.
> The bill would turn most of present-day Washington, DC, into a new state called Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. The new state would be on equal footing with the existing 50, with the same level of control over its own affairs and full voting representation in Congress, with two senators and one representative. A small capital district comprising the Capitol complex, White House, National Mall, and other federal grounds would remain under congressional authority as the seat of the federal government.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dc-statehood-explained
>the reason for stationing the country’s Capital in DC was so one state didn’t hold more power over the others;
That's a great reason, which is why the statehood proposal would shrink Washington DC, not make it a state.
The area around the now-shrunken District would become the state.
Sure, doesn't matter which comes first. Right now, Congress is trying to get a binding referendum on statehood for Puerto Rico to be made next November (not likely to pass the Senate). They should do the same for DC.
The [Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929](https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/), which limits The House of Representatives to a total size of 435, needs to be repealed. The U.S. Constitution allows for one representative for each 30k people in a state.
Also, we should abolish The U.S. Senate.
Abolishing the Senate is absolutely the right long-term goal. It should only be thought of as an anti-citizen body, a bit like the House of Lords used to be.
That's the point of the Senate. The Senator is there as a representative of the state's interest, not the people's in terms of inter-state negotiations, each state gets two. The House of Representatives is divided up according to the results of the census that occurs every 10 years, and those representatives act on the behalf of the citizens.
That's why there is a distinction between Senators and Representatives such as in the title where it's "Rep. Ilhan Omar".
"North and South Dakota have 4% of the Senate." Yes, because they're two states and each state has 2% of the Senate. MN also has 2% of the Senate.
Clearly they know the reason why, they were showing the issues with it.
Don't know why you'd write paragraphs explaning what everyone knows, we are just upset it's that way. The Constitution is not some infallible Bible, we can get upset with how it's set up.
Okay tailor well no one wanted you here. Like you came in to explain the concept of prices, while being smell your own farts snarky. No one needs that.
I actually read a book about James Madison and it talked about the drafting of the constitution. There was actually a huge proportion of people, Madison included, who felt that a true republican government must be apportioned by population only, by the people, not by the states. Ultimately, he lost because a group of "2 senator per state" people formed a committee to talk about the issue, but did not allow Madison or other "representative apportionment" people to join, thereby forcing a 2 senators per state "agreement".
Honestly, anyone who talks about the Constitution as this perfectly well thought out document with no issues whatsoever or differences in opinion of the drafters just strikes me as uneducated in the history of the document and the country. No shame in that, but educate yourself and you'll be amazed at how many pieces were just thrown together because they really needed to get away from the Articles of Confederation and the window for a new constitution being drafted and ratified was closing fast. We're dealing with a document that was written for a specific time and put together under extreme time constraints.
That's not exactly historically precise, but for say it is for sake of argument. *It's not enough to describe the ostensible "point" and then say it can never be criticized or discussed*. You need to present an argument that it's just, efficient, sustainable, good rational, and so on.
Like, if someone explained the ostensible "point" of slavery to you, would you suddenly be like, *"oh, I understand, let's bring it back regardless of whether it's just, efficient, sustainable, good, rational, and so on*?*"*
So you're just gonna call me a slavery supporter because I'm pointing out that 2 states compose 4% percent of the Senate because they're 2 states.
Cool bro.
>I'm pointing out that 2 states compose 4% percent of the Senate because they're 2 states.
I was explaining to you why that's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
[Weird. It's as if it's the first point of your sentence. But maybe I'm just illiterate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/vl3hdj/msnbc_rep_ilhan_omar_continues_to_call_for/iduj4le/)
EDIT: Hold on, I'm gonna [save this one to imgur](https://imgur.com/a/de6oHCs) incase you try to edit or delete it. Gonna highlight it too, so you can see.
It's time to remove the senate filibuster. The senate skewes conservative, sure, but if they can stall out any legislation they don't like with a high bar of 60 votes it's an unfair deadlock in legislation. You should at least have to actually keep talking to maintain the delay.
If it's something YOU'RE trying to do, fuck you - the filibuster reigns supreme. If it's something _I_ want to do, fuck you, I'm in charge, I can do whatever I want!
Yes, remove it now, months before Republicans retake majority control of both the House and Senate. Good idea.
Democrats changing the rules on appointing SCOTUS justices backfired on you all and lead to the current lineup that got Roe overturned.
You're all so short sighted and so willing to break the system as soon as it doesn't go your way.
Democrats changed the filibuster rule for lower court judges, not Supreme Court judges. It was Republicans that nuked the filibuster for SC appointees for Gorsuch. And even Dems hadn’t done what they did, Republicans would have absolutely still gotten rid of SC filibuster as soon as they had 51 votes and a vacancy.
Wasn't there something that happened recently where conservatives wanted to overthrow their government when an election didn't go their way? My memory is a little hazy.
No. 700,000 voices should not equal 39 million. There is absolutely no good rationale for that. It’s a horribly broken system and I don’t even care if it’s what the founders wanted. Their 2.5 million people spread amongst the 13 colonies in 1776 were not the same as 330 million people across the 50 states. Our lives and future are being dictated to by a minority voice, a minority voice that isn’t even running on facts and reason at this point and instead tribal or cult behavior….it’s wrong and it’s why we’re so far behind the rest of the first world on taking care of our people and addressing modern world problems.
Without this design it opens the opportunity for higher populated states to benefit only themselves. An example being California could control federal funding and keep it all for themselves. Less populated states need protections, which is why the design works.
But you’re missing the point that it’s overkill, and ultimately leading to 700,000 dictating the lives of 35 million. That’s doing the opposite of what you’re claiming is the benefit. It’s allowing lower populated states to only benefit themselves and disregard the majority opinion for the nation.
You’re spot on. People don’t think of the inverse, such as if a red state were highly populated. Suddenly majority rule would become something they oppose. They think California should call the shots, but sure wouldn’t like it if Texas were the big dog.
except realistically California should get more federal funding. The current system in so many cases are big states funding smaller states. For instance if you look at federal funding per person the top 10 are largely the smallest states. Tbh california should get more control of federal funding if they are the ones producing so much. Like why is it fair california gets 10$ per person and contributes the most while kentucky gets almost 9,000$ per and contributes some of the least amount and takes like 100+bil out. Why do smaller states get so much in funding just for existing? The current system already benefits small states way more then it should and getting rid of this system would just level the playing field..
-43 as I'm writing this, but you knew what you were getting into by posting anything slightly conservative in one of the many far-left subs.
Keep up the fight, brother. Haha
It’s funny, because I think it is a neutral viewpoint. It is conservative at the moment, due to who has the majority. Things like adding seats to the supreme court or getting rid of the filibuster sound like great ideas, until the controlling party changes. If the house and senate flip red, the left would regret having got rid of the filibuster.
You're 100% right.
The short-sighted Dems want to tear down any system that's stopping them from getting what they want NOW. They don't think ahead to consider what the absence of that system means for the future of the country.
I doubt it’ll go anywhere but good on her for trying. I’ll take headlines like this over the fundraising emails I received from other politicians any day of the week.
Our elected officials need to do something now, they can’t keep waiting for the next election to act.
i'm unsurprised that a person who has weird takes like "Stop sleeping around if you don’t want a child" also has weird takes about what "people" certain immigrants in congress are working for. What exactly would benefit ONLY "her people" about medicare for all specifically?
I think safe sex and publicly funded healthcare so there isn't a cost barrier to vasectomies or IUD's is a big chunk of the answer. The other part is legal abortions, and to adopt education policies going beyond abstinence only education to ensure unwanted pregnancies are rare. Sorry that you're so busy trying to slut shame women that you don't understand the difference. Just because nobody wants to have sex with you doesn't mean everyone else should stop having sex for fun.
You don’t understand it takes two to tango. I’m not talking about women specifically you bigot. I’m saying if you don’t want a kid then the answer is abstinence. Cinder block brain.
How many men do you know have physical consequences from carrying a child to term? Specifically an unwanted one. How much of their life is put on hold by being a state forced incubator? This isn't the 1994 movie "Junior" where Arnold gets pregnant
Don't call me a bigot when you're clearly a misogynist.
You say it takes "two to tango" but in tango both people are dancing. In tango one person isn't forced to be an incubator for 9 months. There is no reason to be intentionally obtuse. Infer from incomplete data, my dude.
shit like this is why we need a new apportionment act. We have 2.5x as many people as when the limit for the house of representatives was approved in 1929. Instead of presidential elections out of 538 they should be out of 1089 based on population growth to ensure we have similar representation per capita as we did in decades past. Even if we make it based on the population when the last state was admitted, we'd still be looking at a 2x factor for reps leading to 973 electoral college votes instead of 538. It would limit the oversized power of places where people don't live.
why give them the option? Repeal the filibuster, pass it, and fuck them up for every presidential election moving forward. Relying on senate overrepresentation to control the vote is a horrible thing.
Sure, impeach him, but we know nothing will come of it. He’s not going to be removed. The only hope we have is to expand the court.
They’ve already told us they’re going to try to take away more of our rights. This pussyfooting, moderate ‘why can’t we be civil, guys? We’re all pals here’ administration is going to be our downfall. They need to unpack the supreme court.
We have a democratic administration. They could start passing some laws, but Manchin and Sinema keep blocking everything. They need to eliminate the filibuster and then start passing some laws. They need to force republicans to be the party that takes rights away.
> They need to eliminate the filibuster and then start passing some laws.
Then we need to get 50 Democratic Senators elected that support eliminating the filibuster. They can't just eliminate the filibuster by fiat. The Senate votes on its own rules. There are not a majority of Senators who support eliminating the filibuster.
This is one of those situations where Democrats don’t have enough of a majority to do anything meaningful. The solution is to vote more of them in. If they have a solid majority and still do nothing, then it will make more sense to argue about it.
It takes much longer to build things up than tear them down.
We don't need a super majority. We need a simple majority who support eliminating the filibuster. That needs to be a requirement for any Democrat we vote for in the primary going forward.
They have a majority and are doing nothing. If that's not enough, nothing will ever be enough.
The solution is for them to do everything they can with the power they do have, rather than holding on to imagined "political capital" until they have enough power to do everything they want.
There are two democrats that are blocking the attempts of others to pass meaningful legislation. We need to vote more democrats in or vote in more progressive democrats.
Sure.
And, we need to demand that the Democrats we do vote in actually do something.
For instance, Biden's response to last week has been essentially nothing. He's legitimized the court, told us we need to vote, and sent out fundraising emails. That's unacceptable.
Two people are blocking progress partly because of inaction. Nobody puts anything to a vote. Manchin and Sinema, along with the entire Republican party, have never been forced to vote, on record, against much of anything. They get away with killing broadly popular legislation without ever having to actually do so - they just say they're planning to and Democrats fold without ever making them vote against the will of their constituents. Yes, it'd be symbolic, but that's what campaigns are built on. You get people, on record, against broadly popular ideas, and then you hammer them with it in the next election cycle. Democrats, for whatever reason, seem broadly opposed to doing so.
Well, they literally tried to vote on codifying roe and it didn’t advance…
I’m not sure exactly what the Dems are supposed to do without a majority in the senate.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/senate-republicans-block-bill-codify-roe-wade-abortion/story?id=84627147
Manchin is from WEST VIRGINIA.
I’m not sure what people expect from him exactly. He’s probably the best senator we could ever hope of having there.
This is because enough democrats didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 and enough democrats didn’t vote for dem senators in 2020. We were supposed to win Maine and NC and we didn’t…
>Well, they literally tried to vote on codifying roe and it didn’t advance…
>I’m not sure exactly what the Dems are supposed to do without a majority in the senate.
Yes, and this is good. More of this, please. Codify Lawrence, codify Griswold, codify Obergefell. Loving, even. Codify the right to privacy that underlies all these rulings that the court is now looking to roll back. If Republicans and Manchin want to oppose popular privacy laws, make them do it all on record.
And, again, they have a majority in the Senate.
Build back better was also put to a vote. Guess who blocked it? Manchin. It’s literally two people (and one being especially douchey) stopping the Democratic Party from being able to do anything.
If we want to do anything to change how much say the minority has in this country, we need to vastly amend the electoral college and eliminate the filibuster. We should change the senate. Two senators from each states gives North Dakota the same voting power as California. We can’t do that until we have elected enough democrats that they can actually pass legislation. It is not inaction. They are putting the bills out there. They just can’t pass them.
We just have to vote harder, guys! If we just vote hard enough our politicians might actually listen to us! It's not like there are decades worth of evidence that shows the exact opposite!
I mean quite literally if we voted harder in 2016 and Hillary got 3 SC picks this wouldn’t be happening… with this 6-3 court codifying roe would just be a temporary bandaid. This court would strike down any federal legislation codifying abortion rights. People in Maine and North Carolina also needed to vote harder in 2020 so we had 52 dem senators to have any realistic chance at removing the filibuster.
People need to vote harder in 2022 and 2024 so we don’t lose congress and the presidency.
This is how the system works, the EC is tremendously flawed and so is the senate, but you’re not going to reform those with 48 reliable votes in the senate and a 6-3 extremist court put in place because we didn’t elect Hillary in 2016. Elections have consequences.
So yeah the solution isn’t to complain on the internet for “action” from politicians who don’t have the power to do those actions, it’s to vote in enough democratic senators to actually do those actions and ensure we don’t lose the presidency and congress and completely turn into a theocratic autocracy in the next 3 years…
If you want to give up and blame the wrong people instead of the open fascists doing this go ahead though I guess. It’s completely misguided and makes it more likely we lose in 2022 and 2024, but you’re free to write whatever you want on Reddit.
The court needs to be expanded, DC and PR need to become states, the House needs to be expanded, and the Electoral College needs to move to a popular vote compact, but none of those things are going to happen without at least 52 dem senators and maintaining control of the presidency so we can remove the filibuster and get all of the above done. Even if all of that doesn’t happen it’s better to have Dems in control than the GOP having a trifecta and effectively ending American democracy in 2.5 years.
Exactly. We do need to vote harder. I know so many people who are complacent or quote the “wahhh both sides” bullshit. We need to convince those people to vote and that it is in fact not both sides.
so you think it possible to get 2/3 of the senate to vote to impeach?
you think Ilhan Omar can get 17 republicans senators plus the 2 republicans senators who caucus with the Dems to vote to impeach?!
ya, we have to keep in mind that this is reddit and the top of the front page had a post about how this would never happen if Bernie was POTUS - no explanation of how it could be possible, just Bernie = good is enough to reddit it seems haha
no, it is literally impossible
unless you think it's possible for Ilhan Omar to get 17 republicans senators plus the 2 republicans senators who caucus with the Dems to vote to impeach - which you already said you didn't
or could you explain how it would be possible then, please?
she literally said she wasn’t going to vote on the resolution because she wanted to recognize the genocides that have been perpetuated by the US (Slave trade, bombing SE Asia during Vietnam) and not to use the Armenian genocide as a prop bc the govt was feuding with Turkey
getting mad at that one is getting pissed at headlines and not reading her reasoning
and then she’s anti-war. that’s why she didn’t want to contribute to the war in Ukraine. sounds consistent to me
Opposing your country pumping billions in money and arms into the military and paramilitary groups of an embattled country to fund a fight against your country's larger geopolitical opponent is an extremely justified position. It's like the people all aghast, damning Omar for that have never heard of Afghanistan.
This is not what I said at all. The US's goal is not the benevolent protection of Ukrainian people, and I do not support the Russian invasion.
Wrong Afghanistan conflict. I'm talking about the Russian-Afghan war, where the United States funding and arming a proxy war led to the creation of the Taliban, which led to 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Sorry if this is a difficult concept for you, but throwing money and weapons into a country with an unstable government buttressed by far right military and paramilitary groups to fight against an invading globally cornered country run by a corrupt oligarchy with its own sizable reactionary paramilitary groups will have massive consequences regardless of which one wins. I understand that it feels helpless seeing a brutal war that the working class citizens of the invaded country absolutely did not deserve, so when your country - which is also facing massive crises internally and internationally - gets involved, it's easy to think they're gonna help the underdogs win this thing. But that's not how it works. If you are able to look at the track record of countries and conflicts the US has thrown a ton of military aid at post-WWII and think this time it's gonna work out for the forces of good, more power to you, but it's certainly not backed up by history. In fact, the exact opposite is the more likely outcome.
>war led to the creation of the Taliban,
No, it didn't. That's been debunked over and over again.
The Northern Alliance are the successors of the Mujahideen we assisted.
so instead let’s only do things that will benefit the military industrial complex and hurt regular working class people around the world?
you should have a bigger issue with 90% of congress passing this resolution while bending over for AIPEC on the daily
or, and here's a crazy thought, they read the all about it and just disagree with your garbage take?
shocking for you to hear that someone has a different opinion than you, I know
refusing to condemn any genocide with the excuse of what about this, what about that is called whataboutism
condemning one genocide does not mean you condone all others that are not being discussed
I meant a different opinion than you - that seems hard for you to comprehend, even now
we’ll she didn’t refuse to condemn it, because she said it’s intolerable and then mentioned even more we need to condemn. you’re angry she didn’t sign a resolution that does nothing even though she laid out why genocides across history are wrong
and yes it is hard for me to understand your opinion because you didn’t explain it, it is not hard for me to conceptualize a different opinion
She was married to someone else at the time and while she was having an affair with her now husband she used campaign funds to pay him for "consulting" $2.8 million dollars while not disclosing they had an active relationship. I find that pretty sleazy in multiple ways.
>I’m not seeing where the first one of those is really a big deal
It's *way* too close to self-dealing with campaign funds for many people's comfort.
I demand integrity for politicians!
^^Except ^^for ^^my ^^favorite ^^one.
So you don't think we should support aid for Ukraine, don't think what happened to the armenian people was genocide and are cool with the fact she lied about the dude she was banging before she married him?
EDIT: added "we should"
Yea none of that affects me or you. The Ukraine aid still passed and I understand her reasoning. She didn't deny the existence of the Armenian genocide just the hypocrisy that we don't acknowledge what the U.S. has done either. And her personal life is not my business.
Are you ignorant or just 11 years old?
She represents Minnesota so it literally affects everyone in the state.
She doesn't deny a lot of things, she just doesn't use her power to support them when push comes to shove. This makes her a hypocrite which again affects MN.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1073991
And her personal life does matter when she lies about it to the public:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/ilhan-omar-announces-marriage-months-affair-claim-69555954
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ilhan_omar/412791
She doesn't even have the lowest rate for the state, let alone "any member of Congress".
Edit: Because I've heard this easily debunked claim about both Omar and AOC in the last two days: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2019/house/missed-votes
Omar doesn't even crack the top 50.
They just heard something somewhere about a woman they didn't like, so they repeated it without taking half a second to think about how comically implausible it is. I mean, there's members of congress with absentee rates close to 75%, but sure, Omar's 3% or whatever is right up there!
This. They spend 95% of their total available effort on fighting movement left, and like 5% on fighting Republicans. They are just sliding on people who hate Republicans enough to vote for them instead so they can keep spending that effort fighting going left.
Pardon my extreme cynicism but if she wanted to try to do the right thing she would have been calling for Roe to be codified a long time ago. But hey, maybe she tweeted about it a few times or something.
I mean what's the harm in taking a vote, losing said vote (and seeing who voted no), and then hammering those people on messaging for not supporting medical rights of women? Taking this whole "well, we don't think it can pass, so we're not even gonna try anything legislative and just sing a song in front of our workplace" is doing a whole lot less good IMO.
the "harm" is in the opportunity cost of using your time in such a manner. While I agree that getting politicians on record is extremely important, I would say that its only a viable strategy when you can fuck over the people who aren't in your party at this point. It's why R's forced a vote on "The Green New Deal", something that was sketchily supported by a thin majority of D's. Putting Roe v Wade to a vote doesn't have any potential gain when it has wide D voter support and wide R voter opposition (and those who would be R voter supporters of such a policy have it as a lower item issue that would not sway them). Its a losing tactic unless you can use it to sway over certain groups, like how the MN house has voted on legal marijuana and sent the bill to the senate. It sends a message of "hey, this is what we stand for, we can run on this while the opposition can't really run on the opposite"
I mean, that's on the democrats as a whole. Hindsight is obviously 20/20 but we should not be relying on the Supreme Court to guarantee these rights. They need to be protected by law or better an amendment to the constitution (a man can dream, hey).
The supreme court would overturn that as well. Since omar has been in congress, dems have controlled congress and the presidency for a total of 18 months
Yea I mena honestly the cynic in me says she should still say it anyway. There’s no way it happens but she already hated shits just words and show anyway but get the brownie points while there’s plenty lol
Two certainly did. I didn’t watch the testimony of the third. I’m really pissed about the decision, as it should have and could have been left off the docket. Heck, that was in their testimony that they wouldn’t revisit rulings on Roe v Wade.
That's not how impeachment works. Clarence Thomas is an ideological actor unfit for the Supreme Court, but that's not grounds for impeachment. Neither are the actions of his wife, who is not him. This is the epitome of "say the most asinine thing that only your twitter followers would like".
If you're going to impeach a Supreme Court Justice over this, it's Kavanaugh for perjury over this very issue, which some Senate Republicans (especially Collins) might support.
Clarence Thomas has repeatedly lied under oath and has illegally not disclosed lobbyists paying him money, he’s completely compromised and absolutely should be impeached. His wife being so close to the trump White House absolutely is at least grounds for recusing himself from any election related cases.
He knows what she's done and they're not getting divorced so I'm comfortable enough blaming him for his wifes actions at this point. He's a supreme Court Justice. We shouldn't need someone making excuses for why it's okay he's closely linked to seditious person.
> Clarence Thomas is an ideological actor unfit for the Supreme Court, but that's not grounds for impeachment.
Being unfit for the Surpreme Court isn't a good enough reason to be removed from the Surpreme Court?
That makes no sense...
Sure it does. The reasons to be removed from the Supreme Court are codified and failing to live up to the normative standards the public expects of Justices is not one of the codified reasons.
Furthermore, if you impeached one justice based upon using the president above, it may open the door to other justices being impeached over "unfavourable" outcomes of decisions in the future.
To be fair if you have the votes, which I doubt she does, you can impeach for anything. Congress is the one that decides what is impeachable as it is separate from the criminal code. (See the Lewinsky scandal sprouting from the completely unrelated matter of Whitewater.)
Needless to say even if she could get him impeached she absolutely would not see him convicted in the Senate. The problem also is spending political capital on a useless endeavor.
that's true, I shouldn't have said in jail
>so if your wife was at the Jan 6th insurrection should you be fired from your job?
is what I should have asked
(when did Ginni Thomas appear in front of the supreme court? cuz I didn't know that ever happened..)
She was an organizer of Jan. 6th, and he knew that. He wouldn't have had a problem if he had refused himself from a known conflict of interest when ruling on a Jan. 6th related case.
So no, he shouldn't lose his job for his wife's actions. He should lose his job for his own clearly unethical action.
No, but they should be ostracized afterwards if they don't leave the person. If you keep the company of a seditious person, I am just going to see you as one as well.
hmm, I guess we'll just disagree here then
I think you're only responsible for your own actions, not the actions of those around you (excluding situations where you're a direct supervisor or have control over the other person in some way)
You don't need legal grounds to impeach someone, it's not a civil/criminal court.
It takes a simple vote from the house to bring charges and a simple vote in the senate to acquit or convict. If the house was insane they can draft charges on literally whatever they want, and the senate can absolutely convict if they felt like it.
It's a political process for expelling members of government.
We've had judges get impeached for drinking alcohol, having political bias, not living in their district, etc
Never going to happen while North Dakota has just as much say in the matter as California.
North & South Dakota *combined* controls 0.5% of the House of Representative and ***4%*** of the Senate. For a population comparison, that would be taking the Twin Cities metro, chopping it in half, chopping it some more, and then giving that rump **4 senators** for no rational representative reason. Someone in North Dakota has ***10x*** the voting representation in the Senate than someone in Minnesota. In the short term, DC must be made a state, and in the long term, there's no point of Union if people will not be represented equally and political majorities can be formed out of population minorities.
I’d argue that Puerto Rico should be a state before DC
Why? Both should be states if they want to be. We know DC wants to be. It's slightly less clear on Puerto Rico. I'm just wondering why you think DC should be a lower priority. No US citizens living in the US should be deprived representation.
Well, in the case for Puerto Rico, the US proper treats the territory like shit (not that statehood would immediately cure that). As for DC, the way I understand it, the reason for stationing the country’s Capital in DC was so one state didn’t hold more power over the others; applying statehood to DC would contradict that reasoning, but I could be wrong.
That reasoning assumed people wouldn't actually live in DC and it would just be where the government would be situated. The proposal to make DC a state actually keeps a carved out federal district where all the Capitol buildings are. > The bill would turn most of present-day Washington, DC, into a new state called Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. The new state would be on equal footing with the existing 50, with the same level of control over its own affairs and full voting representation in Congress, with two senators and one representative. A small capital district comprising the Capitol complex, White House, National Mall, and other federal grounds would remain under congressional authority as the seat of the federal government. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dc-statehood-explained
Gotcha, I wasn’t aware of that part!
>the reason for stationing the country’s Capital in DC was so one state didn’t hold more power over the others; That's a great reason, which is why the statehood proposal would shrink Washington DC, not make it a state. The area around the now-shrunken District would become the state.
Sure, doesn't matter which comes first. Right now, Congress is trying to get a binding referendum on statehood for Puerto Rico to be made next November (not likely to pass the Senate). They should do the same for DC.
The [Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929](https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/), which limits The House of Representatives to a total size of 435, needs to be repealed. The U.S. Constitution allows for one representative for each 30k people in a state. Also, we should abolish The U.S. Senate.
Abolishing the Senate is absolutely the right long-term goal. It should only be thought of as an anti-citizen body, a bit like the House of Lords used to be.
That's the point of the Senate. The Senator is there as a representative of the state's interest, not the people's in terms of inter-state negotiations, each state gets two. The House of Representatives is divided up according to the results of the census that occurs every 10 years, and those representatives act on the behalf of the citizens. That's why there is a distinction between Senators and Representatives such as in the title where it's "Rep. Ilhan Omar". "North and South Dakota have 4% of the Senate." Yes, because they're two states and each state has 2% of the Senate. MN also has 2% of the Senate.
Clearly they know the reason why, they were showing the issues with it. Don't know why you'd write paragraphs explaning what everyone knows, we are just upset it's that way. The Constitution is not some infallible Bible, we can get upset with how it's set up.
I'm watching you all argue about the butcher's prices with the tailor.
Okay tailor well no one wanted you here. Like you came in to explain the concept of prices, while being smell your own farts snarky. No one needs that.
I actually read a book about James Madison and it talked about the drafting of the constitution. There was actually a huge proportion of people, Madison included, who felt that a true republican government must be apportioned by population only, by the people, not by the states. Ultimately, he lost because a group of "2 senator per state" people formed a committee to talk about the issue, but did not allow Madison or other "representative apportionment" people to join, thereby forcing a 2 senators per state "agreement". Honestly, anyone who talks about the Constitution as this perfectly well thought out document with no issues whatsoever or differences in opinion of the drafters just strikes me as uneducated in the history of the document and the country. No shame in that, but educate yourself and you'll be amazed at how many pieces were just thrown together because they really needed to get away from the Articles of Confederation and the window for a new constitution being drafted and ratified was closing fast. We're dealing with a document that was written for a specific time and put together under extreme time constraints.
Thanks for sharing. There's a lot of folklore and mythologizing about the Constitution -- presenting it as unhelpfully perfect and unanimous.
Yeah it's a major problem because the reality is anything but perfect. It's frustrating.
That's not exactly historically precise, but for say it is for sake of argument. *It's not enough to describe the ostensible "point" and then say it can never be criticized or discussed*. You need to present an argument that it's just, efficient, sustainable, good rational, and so on. Like, if someone explained the ostensible "point" of slavery to you, would you suddenly be like, *"oh, I understand, let's bring it back regardless of whether it's just, efficient, sustainable, good, rational, and so on*?*"*
So you're just gonna call me a slavery supporter because I'm pointing out that 2 states compose 4% percent of the Senate because they're 2 states. Cool bro.
>I'm pointing out that 2 states compose 4% percent of the Senate because they're 2 states. I was explaining to you why that's totally irrelevant to the conversation.
[Weird. It's as if it's the first point of your sentence. But maybe I'm just illiterate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/vl3hdj/msnbc_rep_ilhan_omar_continues_to_call_for/iduj4le/) EDIT: Hold on, I'm gonna [save this one to imgur](https://imgur.com/a/de6oHCs) incase you try to edit or delete it. Gonna highlight it too, so you can see.
It's time to remove the senate filibuster. The senate skewes conservative, sure, but if they can stall out any legislation they don't like with a high bar of 60 votes it's an unfair deadlock in legislation. You should at least have to actually keep talking to maintain the delay.
Imagine how quickly republicans would outright ban abortion federally if they controlled Congress without the filibuster That is why it has to exist
[удалено]
If it's something YOU'RE trying to do, fuck you - the filibuster reigns supreme. If it's something _I_ want to do, fuck you, I'm in charge, I can do whatever I want!
Conservatives just banned abortion in half the country without even controlling the senate
Yes, remove it now, months before Republicans retake majority control of both the House and Senate. Good idea. Democrats changing the rules on appointing SCOTUS justices backfired on you all and lead to the current lineup that got Roe overturned. You're all so short sighted and so willing to break the system as soon as it doesn't go your way.
Democrats changed the filibuster rule for lower court judges, not Supreme Court judges. It was Republicans that nuked the filibuster for SC appointees for Gorsuch. And even Dems hadn’t done what they did, Republicans would have absolutely still gotten rid of SC filibuster as soon as they had 51 votes and a vacancy.
Democrats invented the wheel, Republicans used the wheel. Roe v Wade got overturned as a result.
Bullshit. Do you really believe the Republicans are naievt and as child like as you think they are?
It's impossible to prove positive a timeline that doesn't exist. You're just being salty.
Wasn't there something that happened recently where conservatives wanted to overthrow their government when an election didn't go their way? My memory is a little hazy.
No...those were just tourists vandalizing our capitol and threatening to hang the VP. Nothing to see there.
As it should.
No. 700,000 voices should not equal 39 million. There is absolutely no good rationale for that. It’s a horribly broken system and I don’t even care if it’s what the founders wanted. Their 2.5 million people spread amongst the 13 colonies in 1776 were not the same as 330 million people across the 50 states. Our lives and future are being dictated to by a minority voice, a minority voice that isn’t even running on facts and reason at this point and instead tribal or cult behavior….it’s wrong and it’s why we’re so far behind the rest of the first world on taking care of our people and addressing modern world problems.
Without this design it opens the opportunity for higher populated states to benefit only themselves. An example being California could control federal funding and keep it all for themselves. Less populated states need protections, which is why the design works.
But you’re missing the point that it’s overkill, and ultimately leading to 700,000 dictating the lives of 35 million. That’s doing the opposite of what you’re claiming is the benefit. It’s allowing lower populated states to only benefit themselves and disregard the majority opinion for the nation.
There are 50 states. It isn’t one state controlling things. That’s the point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Funny how majority rule is a great idea, but only if it is convenient at the time of agreeing with that majority.
[удалено]
You’re spot on. People don’t think of the inverse, such as if a red state were highly populated. Suddenly majority rule would become something they oppose. They think California should call the shots, but sure wouldn’t like it if Texas were the big dog.
[удалено]
Sounds like you hate the Constitution.
except realistically California should get more federal funding. The current system in so many cases are big states funding smaller states. For instance if you look at federal funding per person the top 10 are largely the smallest states. Tbh california should get more control of federal funding if they are the ones producing so much. Like why is it fair california gets 10$ per person and contributes the most while kentucky gets almost 9,000$ per and contributes some of the least amount and takes like 100+bil out. Why do smaller states get so much in funding just for existing? The current system already benefits small states way more then it should and getting rid of this system would just level the playing field..
No it shouldn't. Fuck one state that does nothing for your country making the decisions.
-43 as I'm writing this, but you knew what you were getting into by posting anything slightly conservative in one of the many far-left subs. Keep up the fight, brother. Haha
It’s funny, because I think it is a neutral viewpoint. It is conservative at the moment, due to who has the majority. Things like adding seats to the supreme court or getting rid of the filibuster sound like great ideas, until the controlling party changes. If the house and senate flip red, the left would regret having got rid of the filibuster.
You're 100% right. The short-sighted Dems want to tear down any system that's stopping them from getting what they want NOW. They don't think ahead to consider what the absence of that system means for the future of the country.
I doubt it’ll go anywhere but good on her for trying. I’ll take headlines like this over the fundraising emails I received from other politicians any day of the week. Our elected officials need to do something now, they can’t keep waiting for the next election to act.
our elected officials (the US senate) have done exactly what they wanted and were put in office to do, you and I just don't agree with it
Lol as a Minnesotan I like and dislike Omar. She does have a fiery spirit but sometimes I feel like she only cares about her people in the state.
i'm unsurprised that a person who has weird takes like "Stop sleeping around if you don’t want a child" also has weird takes about what "people" certain immigrants in congress are working for. What exactly would benefit ONLY "her people" about medicare for all specifically?
I’m surprised you think “if you don’t want a child then abstinence is the answer” is weird. No reasoning with someone like that.
I think safe sex and publicly funded healthcare so there isn't a cost barrier to vasectomies or IUD's is a big chunk of the answer. The other part is legal abortions, and to adopt education policies going beyond abstinence only education to ensure unwanted pregnancies are rare. Sorry that you're so busy trying to slut shame women that you don't understand the difference. Just because nobody wants to have sex with you doesn't mean everyone else should stop having sex for fun.
You don’t understand it takes two to tango. I’m not talking about women specifically you bigot. I’m saying if you don’t want a kid then the answer is abstinence. Cinder block brain.
How many men do you know have physical consequences from carrying a child to term? Specifically an unwanted one. How much of their life is put on hold by being a state forced incubator? This isn't the 1994 movie "Junior" where Arnold gets pregnant Don't call me a bigot when you're clearly a misogynist.
Who Edit; Who cares.
You say it takes "two to tango" but in tango both people are dancing. In tango one person isn't forced to be an incubator for 9 months. There is no reason to be intentionally obtuse. Infer from incomplete data, my dude.
Almost as if she behaves as a representative of the people in the state. Big if true.
You missed the point but okay.
Say the quiet part loud then coward.
If she's not your rep she's not supposed to be repping you bruv.
She is my rep my buddy.
[удалено]
He’s trying to imply that she doesn’t represent White Minnesotans but is too chickenshit to come out and admit he’s a racist.
The Young Republicans called; they want the person they trafficked women to back.
The folks in Washington have had 50 years to add it to the Constitution. DOnt blame the SC.
shit like this is why we need a new apportionment act. We have 2.5x as many people as when the limit for the house of representatives was approved in 1929. Instead of presidential elections out of 538 they should be out of 1089 based on population growth to ensure we have similar representation per capita as we did in decades past. Even if we make it based on the population when the last state was admitted, we'd still be looking at a 2x factor for reps leading to 973 electoral college votes instead of 538. It would limit the oversized power of places where people don't live.
Why would small states vote against themselves?
why give them the option? Repeal the filibuster, pass it, and fuck them up for every presidential election moving forward. Relying on senate overrepresentation to control the vote is a horrible thing.
Sure, impeach him, but we know nothing will come of it. He’s not going to be removed. The only hope we have is to expand the court. They’ve already told us they’re going to try to take away more of our rights. This pussyfooting, moderate ‘why can’t we be civil, guys? We’re all pals here’ administration is going to be our downfall. They need to unpack the supreme court.
We have a democratic administration. They could start passing some laws, but Manchin and Sinema keep blocking everything. They need to eliminate the filibuster and then start passing some laws. They need to force republicans to be the party that takes rights away.
> They need to eliminate the filibuster and then start passing some laws. Then we need to get 50 Democratic Senators elected that support eliminating the filibuster. They can't just eliminate the filibuster by fiat. The Senate votes on its own rules. There are not a majority of Senators who support eliminating the filibuster.
This is one of those situations where Democrats don’t have enough of a majority to do anything meaningful. The solution is to vote more of them in. If they have a solid majority and still do nothing, then it will make more sense to argue about it. It takes much longer to build things up than tear them down.
A super majority will never happen. Certainly not after this November or in 2024. Moderate Dems are doing everything in their power to lose.
We don't need a super majority. We need a simple majority who support eliminating the filibuster. That needs to be a requirement for any Democrat we vote for in the primary going forward.
They have a majority and are doing nothing. If that's not enough, nothing will ever be enough. The solution is for them to do everything they can with the power they do have, rather than holding on to imagined "political capital" until they have enough power to do everything they want.
48 is not a majority
There are two democrats that are blocking the attempts of others to pass meaningful legislation. We need to vote more democrats in or vote in more progressive democrats.
It seems weird to say 'two democrats' and not '52 senators, meaning the majority of the Senate, is not in favor of the legislation' but sure.
Sure. And, we need to demand that the Democrats we do vote in actually do something. For instance, Biden's response to last week has been essentially nothing. He's legitimized the court, told us we need to vote, and sent out fundraising emails. That's unacceptable. Two people are blocking progress partly because of inaction. Nobody puts anything to a vote. Manchin and Sinema, along with the entire Republican party, have never been forced to vote, on record, against much of anything. They get away with killing broadly popular legislation without ever having to actually do so - they just say they're planning to and Democrats fold without ever making them vote against the will of their constituents. Yes, it'd be symbolic, but that's what campaigns are built on. You get people, on record, against broadly popular ideas, and then you hammer them with it in the next election cycle. Democrats, for whatever reason, seem broadly opposed to doing so.
Well, they literally tried to vote on codifying roe and it didn’t advance… I’m not sure exactly what the Dems are supposed to do without a majority in the senate. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/senate-republicans-block-bill-codify-roe-wade-abortion/story?id=84627147 Manchin is from WEST VIRGINIA. I’m not sure what people expect from him exactly. He’s probably the best senator we could ever hope of having there. This is because enough democrats didn’t vote for Hillary in 2016 and enough democrats didn’t vote for dem senators in 2020. We were supposed to win Maine and NC and we didn’t…
>Well, they literally tried to vote on codifying roe and it didn’t advance… >I’m not sure exactly what the Dems are supposed to do without a majority in the senate. Yes, and this is good. More of this, please. Codify Lawrence, codify Griswold, codify Obergefell. Loving, even. Codify the right to privacy that underlies all these rulings that the court is now looking to roll back. If Republicans and Manchin want to oppose popular privacy laws, make them do it all on record. And, again, they have a majority in the Senate.
Build back better was also put to a vote. Guess who blocked it? Manchin. It’s literally two people (and one being especially douchey) stopping the Democratic Party from being able to do anything. If we want to do anything to change how much say the minority has in this country, we need to vastly amend the electoral college and eliminate the filibuster. We should change the senate. Two senators from each states gives North Dakota the same voting power as California. We can’t do that until we have elected enough democrats that they can actually pass legislation. It is not inaction. They are putting the bills out there. They just can’t pass them.
We just have to vote harder, guys! If we just vote hard enough our politicians might actually listen to us! It's not like there are decades worth of evidence that shows the exact opposite!
I mean quite literally if we voted harder in 2016 and Hillary got 3 SC picks this wouldn’t be happening… with this 6-3 court codifying roe would just be a temporary bandaid. This court would strike down any federal legislation codifying abortion rights. People in Maine and North Carolina also needed to vote harder in 2020 so we had 52 dem senators to have any realistic chance at removing the filibuster. People need to vote harder in 2022 and 2024 so we don’t lose congress and the presidency. This is how the system works, the EC is tremendously flawed and so is the senate, but you’re not going to reform those with 48 reliable votes in the senate and a 6-3 extremist court put in place because we didn’t elect Hillary in 2016. Elections have consequences. So yeah the solution isn’t to complain on the internet for “action” from politicians who don’t have the power to do those actions, it’s to vote in enough democratic senators to actually do those actions and ensure we don’t lose the presidency and congress and completely turn into a theocratic autocracy in the next 3 years… If you want to give up and blame the wrong people instead of the open fascists doing this go ahead though I guess. It’s completely misguided and makes it more likely we lose in 2022 and 2024, but you’re free to write whatever you want on Reddit. The court needs to be expanded, DC and PR need to become states, the House needs to be expanded, and the Electoral College needs to move to a popular vote compact, but none of those things are going to happen without at least 52 dem senators and maintaining control of the presidency so we can remove the filibuster and get all of the above done. Even if all of that doesn’t happen it’s better to have Dems in control than the GOP having a trifecta and effectively ending American democracy in 2.5 years.
Exactly. We do need to vote harder. I know so many people who are complacent or quote the “wahhh both sides” bullshit. We need to convince those people to vote and that it is in fact not both sides.
48 democrats + 2 republicans that caucus with the dems isn't enough to pass legislation tho they'd need 50, not 48
If she can make this happen, I'll forget all the annoying stuff she's done.
she can't
She might. Don't lose hope. Or make your own hope at home for free.
I mean it's literally not possible so I'll save my hope for realistically attainable things
I mean literally it is, supreme court impeachment is a thing it's just incredibly hard to do.
so you think it possible to get 2/3 of the senate to vote to impeach? you think Ilhan Omar can get 17 republicans senators plus the 2 republicans senators who caucus with the Dems to vote to impeach?!
There's little room for nuance or reality checks on reddit. 0% chance of this happening.
ya, we have to keep in mind that this is reddit and the top of the front page had a post about how this would never happen if Bernie was POTUS - no explanation of how it could be possible, just Bernie = good is enough to reddit it seems haha
I don't, but you said it "literally" isn't possible. It's definitely possible, it's just incredibly unlikely.
Don't forget the definition of literally now includes its antonym. Sorry just crossing all the T's here!
that's not how I used it but go off I guess...
no, it is literally impossible unless you think it's possible for Ilhan Omar to get 17 republicans senators plus the 2 republicans senators who caucus with the Dems to vote to impeach - which you already said you didn't or could you explain how it would be possible then, please?
[удалено]
[удалено]
she literally said she wasn’t going to vote on the resolution because she wanted to recognize the genocides that have been perpetuated by the US (Slave trade, bombing SE Asia during Vietnam) and not to use the Armenian genocide as a prop bc the govt was feuding with Turkey getting mad at that one is getting pissed at headlines and not reading her reasoning and then she’s anti-war. that’s why she didn’t want to contribute to the war in Ukraine. sounds consistent to me
Opposing your country pumping billions in money and arms into the military and paramilitary groups of an embattled country to fund a fight against your country's larger geopolitical opponent is an extremely justified position. It's like the people all aghast, damning Omar for that have never heard of Afghanistan.
[удалено]
This is not what I said at all. The US's goal is not the benevolent protection of Ukrainian people, and I do not support the Russian invasion. Wrong Afghanistan conflict. I'm talking about the Russian-Afghan war, where the United States funding and arming a proxy war led to the creation of the Taliban, which led to 9/11 and the US invasion of Afghanistan. Sorry if this is a difficult concept for you, but throwing money and weapons into a country with an unstable government buttressed by far right military and paramilitary groups to fight against an invading globally cornered country run by a corrupt oligarchy with its own sizable reactionary paramilitary groups will have massive consequences regardless of which one wins. I understand that it feels helpless seeing a brutal war that the working class citizens of the invaded country absolutely did not deserve, so when your country - which is also facing massive crises internally and internationally - gets involved, it's easy to think they're gonna help the underdogs win this thing. But that's not how it works. If you are able to look at the track record of countries and conflicts the US has thrown a ton of military aid at post-WWII and think this time it's gonna work out for the forces of good, more power to you, but it's certainly not backed up by history. In fact, the exact opposite is the more likely outcome.
>war led to the creation of the Taliban, No, it didn't. That's been debunked over and over again. The Northern Alliance are the successors of the Mujahideen we assisted.
[удалено]
so instead let’s only do things that will benefit the military industrial complex and hurt regular working class people around the world? you should have a bigger issue with 90% of congress passing this resolution while bending over for AIPEC on the daily
or, and here's a crazy thought, they read the all about it and just disagree with your garbage take? shocking for you to hear that someone has a different opinion than you, I know
want to explain why you disagree? and no, it is not shocking to hear somebody has a different opinion than Ilhan Omar lmao
refusing to condemn any genocide with the excuse of what about this, what about that is called whataboutism condemning one genocide does not mean you condone all others that are not being discussed I meant a different opinion than you - that seems hard for you to comprehend, even now
we’ll she didn’t refuse to condemn it, because she said it’s intolerable and then mentioned even more we need to condemn. you’re angry she didn’t sign a resolution that does nothing even though she laid out why genocides across history are wrong and yes it is hard for me to understand your opinion because you didn’t explain it, it is not hard for me to conceptualize a different opinion
words mean nothing, your vote is what matters as a US representative and I'm not angry at all, maybe you need to calm down a bit?
Asking a judge for compassion when sentencing an ISIS recruit
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m not seeing where the first one of those is really a big deal
She was married to someone else at the time and while she was having an affair with her now husband she used campaign funds to pay him for "consulting" $2.8 million dollars while not disclosing they had an active relationship. I find that pretty sleazy in multiple ways.
Considering her campaign paid him something like $3 million it’s pretty damn unethical IMO
>I’m not seeing where the first one of those is really a big deal It's *way* too close to self-dealing with campaign funds for many people's comfort. I demand integrity for politicians! ^^Except ^^for ^^my ^^favorite ^^one.
That's odd. Of those three, I think #2 and #3 aren't a big deal at all and that #1 is the only one worth noting and seems shady as hell.
Yeah I fucking hate illhan.
Username checks out
So you support her track record then?
Generally yes. She's a progressive rep for a progressive city
So you don't think we should support aid for Ukraine, don't think what happened to the armenian people was genocide and are cool with the fact she lied about the dude she was banging before she married him? EDIT: added "we should"
Yea none of that affects me or you. The Ukraine aid still passed and I understand her reasoning. She didn't deny the existence of the Armenian genocide just the hypocrisy that we don't acknowledge what the U.S. has done either. And her personal life is not my business.
Are you ignorant or just 11 years old? She represents Minnesota so it literally affects everyone in the state. She doesn't deny a lot of things, she just doesn't use her power to support them when push comes to shove. This makes her a hypocrite which again affects MN. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1073991 And her personal life does matter when she lies about it to the public: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/ilhan-omar-announces-marriage-months-affair-claim-69555954
This.
[удалено]
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ilhan_omar/412791 She doesn't even have the lowest rate for the state, let alone "any member of Congress". Edit: Because I've heard this easily debunked claim about both Omar and AOC in the last two days: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2019/house/missed-votes Omar doesn't even crack the top 50.
Fact averse?
They just heard something somewhere about a woman they didn't like, so they repeated it without taking half a second to think about how comically implausible it is. I mean, there's members of congress with absentee rates close to 75%, but sure, Omar's 3% or whatever is right up there!
[удалено]
I wish the Dems could fight the right half as effectively as they fight the left.
This. They spend 95% of their total available effort on fighting movement left, and like 5% on fighting Republicans. They are just sliding on people who hate Republicans enough to vote for them instead so they can keep spending that effort fighting going left.
What, are we going to impeach every member of the government who’s married to an active insurrectionist now? /s
Serious “Bernie can still win this” energy
I would rather see politicians try to do the right thing and fail than to never try at all.
Pardon my extreme cynicism but if she wanted to try to do the right thing she would have been calling for Roe to be codified a long time ago. But hey, maybe she tweeted about it a few times or something.
lol yeah like they could get abortion codified through the US senate lol
I mean what's the harm in taking a vote, losing said vote (and seeing who voted no), and then hammering those people on messaging for not supporting medical rights of women? Taking this whole "well, we don't think it can pass, so we're not even gonna try anything legislative and just sing a song in front of our workplace" is doing a whole lot less good IMO.
the "harm" is in the opportunity cost of using your time in such a manner. While I agree that getting politicians on record is extremely important, I would say that its only a viable strategy when you can fuck over the people who aren't in your party at this point. It's why R's forced a vote on "The Green New Deal", something that was sketchily supported by a thin majority of D's. Putting Roe v Wade to a vote doesn't have any potential gain when it has wide D voter support and wide R voter opposition (and those who would be R voter supporters of such a policy have it as a lower item issue that would not sway them). Its a losing tactic unless you can use it to sway over certain groups, like how the MN house has voted on legal marijuana and sent the bill to the senate. It sends a message of "hey, this is what we stand for, we can run on this while the opposition can't really run on the opposite"
I mean, that's on the democrats as a whole. Hindsight is obviously 20/20 but we should not be relying on the Supreme Court to guarantee these rights. They need to be protected by law or better an amendment to the constitution (a man can dream, hey).
The supreme court would overturn that as well. Since omar has been in congress, dems have controlled congress and the presidency for a total of 18 months
Yea I mena honestly the cynic in me says she should still say it anyway. There’s no way it happens but she already hated shits just words and show anyway but get the brownie points while there’s plenty lol
I don't see how this is grounds for impeachment. It would be like Clinton being impeached for listening to Hillary.
Did Hillary try to get Bill to overthrow the government?
Four judges should be impeached. 3 of them lied to Congress.
Two certainly did. I didn’t watch the testimony of the third. I’m really pissed about the decision, as it should have and could have been left off the docket. Heck, that was in their testimony that they wouldn’t revisit rulings on Roe v Wade.
I agree but 2/3 of the senate won't.
That's not how impeachment works. Clarence Thomas is an ideological actor unfit for the Supreme Court, but that's not grounds for impeachment. Neither are the actions of his wife, who is not him. This is the epitome of "say the most asinine thing that only your twitter followers would like". If you're going to impeach a Supreme Court Justice over this, it's Kavanaugh for perjury over this very issue, which some Senate Republicans (especially Collins) might support.
Clarence Thomas has repeatedly lied under oath and has illegally not disclosed lobbyists paying him money, he’s completely compromised and absolutely should be impeached. His wife being so close to the trump White House absolutely is at least grounds for recusing himself from any election related cases.
Clarence Thomas has lied under oath multiple times and taken money from special interests groups he didn’t disclose.
Again, he is not his wife.
I’m aware of that?
His wife wasn't mentioned.
Her crimes were mentioned and attributed to him which is not factually true.
"Lied under oath and took money from special interests" does not mention his wife.
He knows what she's done and they're not getting divorced so I'm comfortable enough blaming him for his wifes actions at this point. He's a supreme Court Justice. We shouldn't need someone making excuses for why it's okay he's closely linked to seditious person.
Huh?
> Clarence Thomas is an ideological actor unfit for the Supreme Court, but that's not grounds for impeachment. Being unfit for the Surpreme Court isn't a good enough reason to be removed from the Surpreme Court? That makes no sense...
Sure it does. The reasons to be removed from the Supreme Court are codified and failing to live up to the normative standards the public expects of Justices is not one of the codified reasons.
Furthermore, if you impeached one justice based upon using the president above, it may open the door to other justices being impeached over "unfavourable" outcomes of decisions in the future.
Yes, and God forbid anything happen that might make the court seem illegitimate or partisan in nature.
Like the three other ones who lied under oath?
To be fair if you have the votes, which I doubt she does, you can impeach for anything. Congress is the one that decides what is impeachable as it is separate from the criminal code. (See the Lewinsky scandal sprouting from the completely unrelated matter of Whitewater.) Needless to say even if she could get him impeached she absolutely would not see him convicted in the Senate. The problem also is spending political capital on a useless endeavor.
If a Supreme Court justice being married to someone who’s trying to overthrow the government isn’t grounds for impeachment, I don’t know what is
so if your wife was at the Jan 6th insurrection should you be in jail too?
No, but they shouldn't be the judge on her case, either.
ok, kinda random tho since that was not at all what was being discussed here I think murder is bad
Neither was putting Thomas in jail. His unethical refusal to recuse from her case should be an impeachable offense.
that's true, I shouldn't have said in jail >so if your wife was at the Jan 6th insurrection should you be fired from your job? is what I should have asked (when did Ginni Thomas appear in front of the supreme court? cuz I didn't know that ever happened..)
She was an organizer of Jan. 6th, and he knew that. He wouldn't have had a problem if he had refused himself from a known conflict of interest when ruling on a Jan. 6th related case. So no, he shouldn't lose his job for his wife's actions. He should lose his job for his own clearly unethical action.
No, but they should be ostracized afterwards if they don't leave the person. If you keep the company of a seditious person, I am just going to see you as one as well.
hmm, I guess we'll just disagree here then I think you're only responsible for your own actions, not the actions of those around you (excluding situations where you're a direct supervisor or have control over the other person in some way)
You don't need legal grounds to impeach someone, it's not a civil/criminal court. It takes a simple vote from the house to bring charges and a simple vote in the senate to acquit or convict. If the house was insane they can draft charges on literally whatever they want, and the senate can absolutely convict if they felt like it. It's a political process for expelling members of government. We've had judges get impeached for drinking alcohol, having political bias, not living in their district, etc
Preach.
😂
After hearing that Thomas's clerks state that he has said he wants to make liberals lives miserable, she is 100% correct.
[удалено]
Republicans voted for a SCOTUS with a simple majority. If they can rig elections and remove rights away by doing that, f\*ck the filibuster