Fascinating discussion of voter fraud, the SAVE Act, and the filibuster
This isn’t long – only a little over five minutes (faster if speeded up), and it’s well worth hearing. It’s an interview with Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. He explains why voting fraud is nearly impossible to prove in the court system after the fact (something I’ve been saying for a long time), why the SAVE Act is so important, and he makes a suggestion about how to deal with the filibuster problem.
Trump is onto something w/ this SAVE Act — all too far politically advanced for me — I have silently been backing him on this tho. Yeah, who knows what the Dems will do when they gain power again. “Mandatory Proof of Citizenship” should be a must…
Ron Johnson is our most excellent Senator. Tammy Baldwin is our appalling one.
I agree with Senator Johnson’s diagnosis–the filibuster is gone the next time the Dems control the Senate, House, and White House–and horrible legislation will follow (e.g., DC and PR as states, a packed Supreme Court, and voting procedures that will permit rampant vote fraud). But I disagree with his prescription. A fundamental pillar of the common law is that today’s legislature can’t bind tomorrow’s. Even 67 Senators today voting on a Senate Rule codifying a 67-vote legislative filibuster can’t stop 51 Senators from changing that rule tomorrow. The only way to have a mandatory filibuster is a Constitutional amendment that requires 60 (or 67) votes in the Senate to pass legislation. I agree with Senator Johnson that making people go “on the record” about the filibuster may cause some Senators to think twice about later changing their vote–but I doubt that will carry the day. Not 1 American in 10 has a clue what the filibuster is, and even fewer care. The Republicans have two options: (1) propose a Constitutional amendment to require 60 votes to pass legislation and give the Dems a short fuse to get it ratified (there’s no chance of this happening before the mid-terms) or (2) blow up the filibuster and pass election integrity laws. But this plan requires that the Republicans hold both houses of Congress in the mid-terms and pursue this strategy in the next Congress.
Chad King:
Did you listen to the whole 5+ minute clip of Johnson? He said that it almost certainly wouldn’t be binding. But he wanted to get people on record with their votes.
Senator Johnson at about 1:10:55 in the video: “If the Democrats get power,this nation is over. It’s just over.” Seems about right.
Refreshing: A clear-seeing politician who also isn’t a flannel mouth.
But Johnson isn’t a career politician. He was a successful businessman before.
Neo. I did. And I noted his position that getting people on the record is a good idea. I simply don’t like theater and it’s close to certain that any Senate rule vote is nothing more than theater that can be undone by a future simple majority. If we want to protect the filibuster, a Constitutional amendment is the only alternative (other than trusting the Democrats to not eliminate it). And a threat that the Republicans will move first is the only way to move a Constitutional amendment forward. I like Johnson and enjoyed his interview.
Chad King:
My point is just that he agreed with you that any rule can easily be undone.