The”Myth of Bipartisanship”: Kyrsten Sinema Becomes The Latest Victim of Rage Politics

Below is my column in the Hill on the Democratic members and groups attacking Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) after she repeated her support for the filibuster rule. The reaction to her floor speech reveals the depth of the addiction to rage in our body politic.  It is the same license that we saw this weekend in Florida when Florida agriculture commissioner and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Nikki Fried compared the support of Gov. Ron DeSantis to the rise of “Hitler.” It is not enough to disagree. You have to compare your opponent to a genocidal murderer. It seems that we cannot discuss even agriculture policies without raising Anschluss in the age of rage.  Many of us criticized former President Trump for his personal attacks and attacks on the press, but many of those same voices are now denouncing others, like Sinema, as enemies of democracy and the people. Sinema is a case study in rage politics.

Here is the column:

In Shakespeare’s “Othello,” the character Iago famously declared that “men in rage strike those that wish them best.” It was a warning that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) now understands all too well. Both Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have refused to be bullied into changing the filibuster rule — a rule that forces the parties into dialogue and compromise.

Sinema supports the voting rights legislation but sees this move as endangering any chance of national healing and resolution. She stated on the Senate floor that “we have but one democracy. We can only survive, we can only keep her, if we do so together.” That deeply felt speech was met with vile, threatening attacks. It appears that, in a nation addicted to rage, even those seeking an intervention can become the casualties of our political distemper.

Sinema offered the same arguments long used to support the filibuster — indeed, the same arguments made by President Biden until this week. Biden once called earlier efforts to change the filibuster “disastrous” for democracy and proclaimed, “God save us from that fate. … [It] would change this fundamental understanding and unbroken practice of what the Senate is all about.” Others joined him then in demanding that Senate Republicans preserve the rule in the name of democracy itself, including then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who insisted that abandoning the rule would be “doomsday for Democracy” and reduce the United States to a “banana Republic.”

All of those speeches were celebrated back then in the media and by Democrats as powerful and poignant.

Yet that is the liberating quality of rage: It is pure and absolute without the burden of reason or recognition. Liberal commentators this week went after Sinema with sputtering, blind fury, many mocking that she became emotional as she described the anger and divisions in the country.

MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell wrote, “Sinema delivers the Senate’s stupidest speech by a Democrat in an edge-of-tears voice to give childish words a melodramatic effect.” Onetime MSNBC host Keith Olbermann tweeted that Sinema “needs to resign or be removed from office immediately. … [She] has become a menace to the continuation of American democracy.” MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance went further and said Sinema’s staff should “resign at the shame of being handmaidens to the death of Democracy.”

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, who previously called for burning down the Republican Party, tweeted, “Sinema is effectively asking the authors of Jim Crow and vote-rigging to give their permission for her to stop it. This is worse than incoherent or cowardice. It’s a moral disgrace. Ask the segregationists for permission to vote for Civil Rights Act?”

So, senators voicing the same position recently held by Democrats such as Biden, Obama and Schumer are now “segregationists”?

The “Jim Crow on steroids” reference to the Georgia election law was voiced by Biden, who has now yielded entirely to rage politics. He recently pledged to do “whatever it takes” to pass the legislation, and his solution was to go full blind rage in Atlanta by accusing anyone voting for the filibuster as siding with segregationists and seeking the destruction of democracy. The next day, Biden unleashed a tirade denouncing half of the Senate for seeking to establish autocracy through voter suppression.

The president, who once insisted he would be the nation’s unifier, has discovered the license of rage politics — the same license shown by those who chased Sinema into a bathroom last year. Likewise, after Sinema’s floor speech, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staffer Sarah Michelsen was thrilled to see Sinema close to tears and encouraged activists to “keep going” with the attacks because they are “breaking her.”

It is the same license to hate and harass that was shown by ACLU lawyer Samuel Crankshaw, who opposed high schooler Nicholas Sandmann being accepted into college even after he was shown to have been falsely accused of harassing a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It is the license that recently led a Los Angeles Times columnist to defend mocking the deaths of unvaccinated people.

Some Democrats were quick to promise that Sinema had just ended her career; CNN’s Joe Lockhart wrote, “Probably more accurate to refer to her as former Senator Sinema.” Her speech was, in that sense, reminiscent of another courageous senator, Edmund Ross of Kansas, one of seven Republicans who voted to acquit then-President Andrew Johnson in 1868. He described his fateful vote as “literally [looking] down into my open grave.”

Ross is celebrated as a “profile of courage” for taking such a stand despite the anger of his own party.

So, too, was Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) when he voted to convict then-President Trump in his second impeachment trial; liberal commentators showered him with praise. In 2020, Stephen Colbert heralded Romney as “a ray of hope” who spoke the truth and was “willing to put up with whatever the blowback for this decision is.”

O’Donnell tweeted that “each day for the rest of his life [Lindsey Graham] will live in enraged jealousy of [Romney’s] courage.” While Romney also got emotional on the floor, O’Donnell did not mock him for his “edge-of-tears voice to give childish words a melodramatic effect.”

Schumer went public to “salute” Romney: “The pressure on every Republican was enormous. … The fact that this is bipartisan holds up a beacon to what was right and what was wrong.”

Yet, according to the Liberal pundits, Sinema is no Romney. She had the audacity to stand on principle rather than politics. It is widely believed that other Democratic senators share her discomfort with changing the filibuster, but, thus far, they have not summoned the same courage to face such withering criticism. As I wrote last year, such integrity is rarely rewarded by one’s own party: “Ross, like Romney, jumped — to the applause of the opposing party. In the Senate, self-sacrifice remains an act best admired from a distance.”

Sinema’s speech was denounced by those who insist that bipartisanship is a “myth” in the age of rage. She is, according to MSNBC’s Nina Turner, a “soulless coward” for seeking common ground and compromise. She is hated precisely because she did not hate enough. She did not hate Republicans so blindly as to declare them modern Bull Connors like Biden did or to call the filibuster “a relic of Jim Crow.”

In the age of rage, civility is repulsive and intolerable. Sinema made herself a reference point that exposed how unhinged many of her fellow Democrats have become. Remove that reference point, and only rage remains.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

246 thoughts on “The”Myth of Bipartisanship”: Kyrsten Sinema Becomes The Latest Victim of Rage Politics”

  1. The acceptability of this whole “rage” thing has to go away. If harrassment, bullying, physical violence, threatening of families becomes (or remains) an acceptable norm, the level of violent response is going to rise, and our civilization is going to fall. People need to control themselves, act civilized, and learn that you don’t always get what you want – and you have to live with that.

    1. Skipkirkwood says:

      “People need to control themselves, act civilized, and learn that you don’t always get what you want – and you have to live with that.”

      Try telling that to Trump….

      1. Trump is always in control. He knew that if he didn’t act outrageous he wouldn’t get noticed. And guess what, you noticed him.

        1. Turley certainly did notice Trump’s outrageous back in 2011. This what he had to say:

          “NewsMax CEO Christopher Ruddy’s cynical and sensational selection of Donald Trump to moderate the next presidential debate has backfired. Ruddy united conservative and liberal commentators and candidates in denouncing him and NewsMax for the obscene idea — with Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman leading the way in immediately refusing to participate in such a circus. Perry, and Romney were the next (rather belatedly) to refuse to participate. Bachmann has now also declined to participate on a program with look of The Apprentice and the dignity of the Jersey Wives. That leaves Santorum and Gingrich who have confirmed that they will appear with a carnival snake charmer to get on TV.”

          https://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/09/newsmax-flames-out-trump-debate-down-to-gingrich-and-santorum/

          The very idea that Trump would moderate a presidential debate was deplored by Turley. Just imagine how much more *obscene* he must have imagined the prospect of Trump running for President. Once a “carnival snake charmer” always a carnival snake chamber.

          1. “Just imagine how much more *obscene* he must have imagined the prospect of Trump running for President. ”

            I don’t think Turley anticipated a Trump run at that time, but if you ask Turley today, if Trump’s policies were mostly good, he would probably agree and doubly agree after seeing what a Democrat administration has brought under Biden.

            I can see where one might find a television host as a poor moderator, but as we have seen, the moderation of the press to be lousy.

            You like to bash Trump, but you are nowhere to be found when it comes to put up or shut up. Let us hear those Trump lies. Let us hear about Trump’s policies. You are a one-trick pony, and the trick stinks.

  2. As I wrote before, we owe a deep debt of gratitude to Sinema and Manchin for their resistance. But a deeper analysis is needed. Sinema identified the problem we face not as the filibuster itself but as the division that gives it significance. But what is the source of the division? It is not merely the run of the mill temporary alliance of faction arising from class, economic interest or region that Madison identified in Federalist 10. Rather, it seems to be a fundamental “conflict of visions” that Sowell identified years ago. At its most basic, this conflict is over how much individuals can know and how effective political action based on that knowledge can be. Progressive Democrats now appear to have embraced wholeheartedly the “unconstrained” vision. They believe they know what the problems we face are, their “root causes” and how to solve them. Whether it be Covid 19, climate change, crime, group disparities, etc, they are confident they have identified the problems correctly and that the intelligent application of federal power will solve them. This is why they tend to centralise control and empower “experts” in executive offices. They have contempt for those who are skeptical that the problems have been correctly identified, that we can fully understand their causes, and that the application of state power can solve them. They seem oblivious to the possibility of adverse consequences. They disparage the benefits of decentralised systems of competence that operate largely independently of political direction, because they can produce outcomes they dislike. And they see anyone who opposes them as benighted obstructionists and racists, which explains their rage — how can people so oblivious to the truth and the manifest solutions to our problems through the intelligent application of political power be tolerated? It is this arrogance about the possibilities of articulated knowledge and its application through political power, and contempt for those who believe more in neutral systems that rely on decentralised individual choice to mobilise the partial knowledge we all possess, that now seems to be at the root of our divisions. It is, perhaps, not new, but it seems to me to have taken on larger importance.

    1. Daniel: Looking at the policy direction of both parties, there’s a clear line that separates states’ rights Republicans from globalist Democrats. All of the bills the Democrats have introduced, from voting “rights” to health care to education, trend towards centralization of authority. The Republicans are fighting for the constitutional rights of each state to make those decisions as their voters see fit. So the question is, in which direction will the country move?

      1. I’m afraid it really doesn’t matter anymore. We’ve already lost our country. With the Democrats it will happen quickly and with the Republicans a bit slower, but nevertheless, our country is over. The idea of America was truly inspirational, but the progressives thought Cuba was better. And so it goes. Another one bites the dust.

    2. Daniel says:

      “Progressive Democrats now appear to have embraced wholeheartedly the “unconstrained” vision. They believe they know what the problems we face are, their “root causes” and how to solve them.”

      As a Liberal, I believe science is the vision we should follow; Conservatives embrace the vision of Bronze Age men and their myths of gods. THAT fundamental difference still divides us.

      1. JS, You mean the “science” that led to unprecedented lock downs, mask mythology, the disparagement of repurposed treatments known to be safe and the mandating of “vaccines” that don’t prevent infection or transmission and that do little against the now-dominant variant; the “science” that defines anthropogenic “climate change” as an “existential threat” requiring a war on fossil fuels that are necessary for modern life, and to pull many parts of the world out of poverty; and the “science” that has concluded that “systemic racism” accounts for disparities among groups today and so requires the “dismantling” of neutral systems of competence? You prove my point.

        1. Daniel,

          I take it that you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent supernatural being to which you can pray for things?

        2. Daniel, disparaging science as “science” by showing the ignorance behind in denigrating of the concept is the bigger problem. This is more about being illiterate in science than anything else.

          Lockdowns were instituted because nobody knew just how bad covid really was. What WAS known at the time is that if was highly infectious it put a LOT of people in the hospital and a LOT of people were dying from it. There was no treatment against it and no vaccine. Lockdowns were the most logical step to take at the time. Masks were the ONLY measure that had some positive impact in slowing the spread.

          1. “Lockdowns were the most logical step to take at the time.”

            A person who understands science would look at what happened and ask, did lockdowns stop the virus or prolong the duration?

            Do you realize that scientists and the WHO initially advocated against lockdowns? It doesn’t seem so. Do you know the results of the studies involving lockdowns? No. The vast consensus was that lockdowns don’t work. That consensus remained until politicians started to consider themselves scientists, and based on no scientific principles, used lockdowns. They weren’t even used when Covid-19 first started. The reason for the lockdown then was to flatten the curve to protect hospitals from becoming overcrowded.

            Do you know what flattening the curve means?

            You still don’t know these things with all the discussion, scientific papers, and even some political realization today. You still don’t know these things? How can that be?

            1. Hindsight is always 20/20 anonymous.

              At the time lockdowns were the only logical course of action due to the many unknowns about the virus. China instituted a massive lockdown and just because they did it gave everyone the impression that it was a lot worse than they let on.

              Scientists and the WHO didn’t know the full extent of the virus because China was not being very forthcoming with information. China locked down hard and when things started to get really bad in Italy everyone started lockdowns. Nobody had time for studies on lockdowns when covid was rapidly spreading and sending people to hospitals short on respirators and oxygen.

              There was only a ”consensus” that lockdowns don’t work when much more about the virus was learned.

              “ The vast consensus was that lockdowns don’t work. That consensus remained until politicians started to consider themselves scientists, and based on no scientific principles, used lockdowns. They weren’t even used when Covid-19 first started. ”

              Politicians were at the mercy of scientists who only knew the virus was bad and highly infectious. A lockdown was the most logical course of action. Politicians don’t have the luxury of waiting until it’s too late. They had to act fast. Not wait for studies.

              1. “Hindsight is always 20/20 anonymous.”

                Are you illiterate? Did you not read the scientific data that was known at the time? Even the WHO was saying lockdowns don’t work, and that was just one voice among many, including the consensus of scientists that actually studied respiratory disease.

                There is no hindsight. That was the science at the time. Later lockdowns were to prevent hospitals from becoming overcrowded. It was later that lockdowns were used based on no science at all.

                I can’t believe I am talking to a person who is so ignorant. Your logic is the logic of a snail pretending it can do calculus.

                Ugh. If you represent an educated American, America is in trouble.

                1. There is no need for hindsight. Just read Jeffrey Tucker’s recent piece on this at the Brownstone Institute website. We knew then much of what we know now about which populations were at serious risk and which not.

          2. “Lockdowns were instituted because” Lord Fauci (who, after all, is “science”) decreed it — and ignorant, mini-tyrants (mayors and governors) mindlessly obeyed.

            “Lockdowns were the most logical step to take at the time.”

            BS. It is immoral and impractical for the government to mass quarantine *healthy* people. That those “lockdowns” tanked the economy (and forced countless businesses into bankruptcy) was part of the D’s playbook to elect Biden.

          3. Perhaps there was no known treatment when the lockdowns were instituted, but treatments quickly became available — first among them hydrochloroquine. The “scientists” promptly spat out a lot of fake science including fake studies published in the most prestigious journals, The “scientists” thereafter continued to refuse to look for treatments (and lied about treatments like ivermectin identified by actual scientists). Leftist policies ALWAYS contradict the science.

        3. “. . . the ‘science’ that led to unprecedented lock downs” — and that conveniently ignores the actual science of natural immunity.

      2. What does science tell us of social, economic and political issues? What does science tell us about high crime rates? What does science divulge regarding moral values? There are so many holes in the body of science that blindly following science is a path to an infinite number of unintended outcomes. The best science cannot even predict with any degree of accuracy, the cost of government legislation 18 months down the road.

        Scientific research has the same flaws as every other economic activity in that much of what is called research just follows the money.

          1. Jeff, science doesn’t tell us there are no Gods. Do you understand what science is? Perhaps not, science requires an open mind.

    3. Daniel: Nice commentary, thanks…(My parents never told us which political party they belonged to. However, we remember that they referred to the other party as “the enlightened ones.”…we learned on our own….)

      1. Thanks Lin. Sowell refers to them as the “anointed.” In his book Woke Racism, McWhorter refers to them as the “elect.”

  3. Sinema (and many others) are like:

    GOP using partisan voting to make it harder for people to vote: OK!
    Ds using partisan voting to make it easier for people to vote: NO!

    The “principles” at play here are clear.

      1. Democrats want to suppress the vote by chasing women and minorities into public restrooms and harassing them.

    1. Except nothing that the GOP is doing actually makes it harder for legitimate voters to vote. Hell, even Mexico requires a voter ID, and it’s not just your driver license – it’s an actual federal voter ID card!

      Start with a false premise, then try to build your case on it. Like a house of cards.

    2. GOP using partisan voting to make it harder for people to vote: OK!
      Ds using partisan voting to make it easier for people to vote: NO!

      Do you agree that voting laws should not disenfranchise eligible voters? This would mean laws need to provide a means to verify eligibility to vote. They need to provide all eligible voters a system to cast their vote. They need to provide a secure system to account for all votes cast. Any law that weakens any of those three areas risks disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

      Those are the principles at play here.

      If you have evidence that proves Republicans have or want voting laws that are intended to disenfranchise eligible voters, then provide it.

    3. Yeah, the principle is that voting to accomplish evil things is wrong and should be prevented. People who would vote to take money and rights from others by force should not be voting, but that’s exactly the kind of voting the Democrats’ proposals are intended to facilitate. It’s not about voting rights; it’s about voting WRONGS.

  4. “a rule that forces the parties into dialogue and compromise” — I’ve never heard the filibuster rule described that way. It does make sense.

    1. It’s supposed to do that but it’s not used that way. It’s abused by both parties as a means to obstruct.

  5. “Keith Olbermann tweeted that Sinema “needs to resign or be removed from office immediately. … [She] has become a menace to the continuation of American democracy.” MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance went further and said Sinema’s staff should “resign at the shame of being handmaidens to the death of Democracy.””

    They speak with forked tongues.

  6. I just read the good professor’s succinct and to-the-point piece and, as of 9:36 a.m., eight comments. Every one of the eight comments triggers thought and consideration–thank you. In sum total, they represent the truevalue of cross-debate and discussion, and I’m sure, help ProfessorTurley know that his blog forum is appreciated and of value.

  7. Turley is being deliberately naive and willfully disingenuous. While pathetically trying to portray an image of being above the fray Turley is engaging in feeding the rage he criticizes. Hypocrisy has become Turley’s best friend.

    The filibuster is a useful tool when all parties are rational. But, it’s also a weapon of obstruction when partisan animosity and compromise are NOT the goal. Both parties are guilty of it. However Sen. Sinema is being naive in thinking keeping the filibuster will encourage compromise. Compromise is a dirty word within the Republican Party. Compromise is seen as a sign of weakness within the Republican Party. It’s one of the reasons why republicans really won’t engage in compromise when they use the filibuster to obstruct legislation. Turley forgets that a compromise can be negotiated without a filibuster.

    The entire point of a Democratic system is about the majority of votes determining a decision. Even in a representative democracy it’s still about the majority votes determining a goal or decision. In state legislatures where the Republican party has a supermajority or a comfortable majority they rule by “tyranny of the majority” without the benefit of a filibuster rule. Even these Republican state legislatures use that “tyranny” to overrule their own voters when voters clearly want a change such as expanding Medicaid coverage. In Missouri state voters approved a constitutional amendment expanding such coverage, but Republican legislators sought to nullify that mandate from voters by simply voting by “tyranny of the majority” rule. That’s not democracy, that’s what authoritarianism is.

    The filibuster is a relic from the days southern politicians and legislators, yes those democrats, that was only used to prevent civil rights legislation from being passed. It was a means for a minority to keep what the rest of the country didn’t want. Laws keeping racial discrimination in place. That’s not how a democracy works.

    Republicans seem to love democracy only when it benefits them, but it’s an obstacle when it doesn’t.

    If a filibuster forces compromise why isn’t it a rule in every state legislature? It’s a rule that is no longer useful in this age of extreme partisanship. Turley should know better than just spew deliberate mis-characterizations of what democrats are saying.

    Trump is just as guilty of engaging in fomenting that rage he complains about. Trump IS the biggest source of that, yet Turley is being deliberately obtuse and ignorant about it because clearly he is being partisan.

      1. Just StoppIt,

        It’s a legitimate point. Trump is just as guilty in encouraging the rage Turley complains about. More so than he would like us to believe.

        1. Trump expresses his rage as one person of many. Democrats express their rage in lockstep even, if as expected, if you don’t see it.

          1. Anonymous, a distinction without a difference. Trump supporters are just as prone to be lockstep when expressing rage. CRT, BLM, vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci, etc. all have been in lockstep even without Trump being involved.

            1. “Nearly two thirds of Americans believe the US is ‘doing badly’ on managing Covid, with Joe Biden’s pandemic handling at the lowest point of his presidency, a CBS poll has revealed.

              The survey, released on Sunday found 64 per cent are unhappy with the current management of the virus, with only 36 per cent of respondents believing the government’s efforts are ‘going well’.”

              Svelaz: “Don’t Stop believing!!!!”

              1. Anonymous, managing the pandemic requires cooperation from everyone involved. You can’t be successful when there are those intent on obstruction or defiance purely for political gain. Trump was also polling badly in mismanaging the response to COVID. He was caught lying about testing availability too.

                1. You again? I have to question whether you are posting what you believe or the dullest person on this blog. I am guessing the latter. Trump made sure the vaccine was produced quickly.

                  Though this characterization shouldn’t be used, the truth is Biden killed more people from Covid than Trump. Biden has made every wrong move possible. Are you one of Biden’s advisors?

            2. Not so. Trump supporters can be critical of Trump and say so. Look at how critical the Republican Party was of Trump when he took office and when he left. There was no lockstep existing there. I am surprised you don’t know these things and are ignorant of the facts surrounding Trump and the lockstep behavior of the Democrat Party.

              1. Anonymous,

                “ Not so. Trump supporters can be critical of Trump and say so. Look at how critical the Republican Party was of Trump when he took office and when he left. There was no lockstep existing there.”

                The Republican Party was critical of Trump, BUT Trump’s supporters have criticized republicans who have criticized Trump in lockstep. Look at Liz Cheney and others. It’s exactly why so many republicans are afraid to criticize Trump, because his supporters who are overwhelmingly republicans go into a torrent of criticism and insults and yes rage over any criticism.

                Trump is often the one who encourages his supporters to be in lockstep with his rage against his critics just like any cult leader does.

                1. This is no different from the posting I just replied to, so I assume you didn’t finish and wanted to make sure your ignorance was sufficiently glorified.

    1. The filibuster is ESPECIALLY and ABSOLUTELY useful in this age of extreme partisanship. It keeps the mob in check – if you refuse to compromise or negotiate, nothing gets done. Perfect. Learn from your mistakes and start participating in a civilized manner in a negotiated political process.

      If actions speak louder than words, Turley is characterizing what democrats are saying with great accuracy and precision.

      And you missed another point. We do not have a “democratic” (pure majoritarian) system. We have a constitutional republic, where the rights of the individual are protected from the tyranny of the majority. The democrats really don’t want pure majoritarianism – otherwise the country could vote to disenfranchise minorities, restrict the vote to property owners, and do all sorts of evil – because that is what the “mob” wants.

      1. Skipkirkwood,

        I disagree. The filibuster has not forced either party to compromise or encourage discussion. It’s been used purely as an instrument of obstruction. If the filibuster is so useful why isn’t it a rule in every state legislature?

        It’s not constitutionally required and it’s purely a creation of congress itself.

        “Keeping the mob in check” is not the purpose of the filibuster. It’s yo force compromise and dialogue remember?

        Everything we do in government IS determined by majoritarian (democracy) rule. The rights of the individual are protected from “mob rule” by the courts.

        State legislatures, especially those with republican supermajorities do rule by “mob rule”. In fact it’s emphasized by republicans that if people want to prevent that they can vote out those ruling by majority rule. The same concept should apply to both houses of congress. The filibuster is currently used to prevent the duly elected majority from passing legislation that the majority agrees on. Just like in state legislatures. It’s still a representative democracy.

        I used Missouri as a good example of the hypocrisy of republicans claim of a “constitutional republic”. Their voters approved of a constitutional amendment to expand Medicaid. Yet their own legislators are refusing to implement the expansion by refusing to fund it. Voters are being ignored but those same legislators are offering the solution to that problem of course for voters to vote for legislators who will obey their constitution. If a simple majority overrode those legislators would it be “mob rule”?

        The filibuster is long past it’s usefulness in this hyperpartisan environment. It’s not used as it was intended.

    2. This comment is a classic example of “projecting” State legislators function differently than the legislative branch of the Federal government. So the analogy is false. Naturally he would not cite California if it were true. The senate is split 50/50 but this commenter thinks it is perfectly fine for his party to shove down the throats of America the most radical policies ever proposed. An authoritarian government is only possible when power is centralized. That is precisely the goal of the progressive fascist party. Look in the mirror before you accuse Mr. Turley of being ignorant and disingenuous

      1. Alank,

        “ This comment is a classic example of “projecting” State legislators function differently than the legislative branch of the Federal government. So the analogy is false.”

        Wrong. It’s not projecting anything. It’s pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of the right’s justification of the filibuster.

        Nearly every state legislature is modeled after congress. Some states have two houses just like congress does a House of Representatives and a house of senators. Their functions are the same. They rule by majority vote. None have a filibuster rule to prevent a “tyranny of the majority”.

        “ Naturally he would not cite California if it were true.” Even California rules by the same concept of majority rule.

        “ The senate is split 50/50 but this commenter thinks it is perfectly fine for his party to shove down the throats of America the most radical policies ever proposed.”

        The senate is indeed split 50/50, BUT it’s technically 51/50. the Vice President has the deciding vote in a tie and obviously one more vote over 50 constitutes a majority. The repeal of Obamacare was prevented by one vote, John McCain’s. Is that “mob rule”?

        “ An authoritarian government is only possible when power is centralized.”

        That’s true. Fortunately our form of government is not centralized even with a majority in congress.

        Republicans however do seek centralized government by retaining a supermajority in a legislature and court system.

        1. “Republicans however do seek centralized government by retaining a supermajority in a legislature and court system.”

          All sides seeking to prevail is the political nature of our government. The difference is the Democrats want the power to create a more centralized government that they can control forever. The Republicans primarily seek to create a less centralized government leaving more power to the states. The difference is not exactly a straight line rather the average impact of the two parties concerned.

          I am surprised you don’t see that. Maybe you aren’t paying attention when major legislation is passed, so I will provide an example, the so-called ACA (Affordable Care Act), which didn’t make things more affordable or offer more care. Instead, it centralized healthcare into the federal sphere.

          Are you now understanding, or is that flying over your head?

          1. Anonymous,

            “ The Republicans primarily seek to create a less centralized government leaving more power to the states.”

            Wrong. In states where republicans have supermajorities they rule as a centralized government. Republicans are fine with a centralized form of government when it comes to states. Which they readily admit. They practice majoritarian rule with impunity they don’t really oppose the idea.

            “ am surprised you don’t see that. Maybe you aren’t paying attention when major legislation is passed, so I will provide an example, the so-called ACA (Affordable Care Act), which didn’t make things more affordable or offer more care. Instead, it centralized healthcare into the federal sphere.”

            No it didn’t. The ACA kept health insurance affordable AND kept insurance premiums from growing out of control. It wasn’t intended to provide more care. It was intended to provide more accessible care. That’s why the ACE is still incredibly popular, even with the majority of republicans.

            It wasn’t centralized within the federal sphere. It’s still run by private insurers. The difference is they are now obligated by law to keep certain things in check, from being abused.

            1. In states where republicans have supermajorities they rule as a centralized government.

              What states with Republican “supermajorities” rule as a centralized government? What are these states doing that you consider as ruling as a centralized government?

              1. Florida, Texas, Missouri, among a few examples. It’s where states have a simple majority in the legislature or veto proof majorities.

                Some states have Republican governors, with republican majorities in the legislature AND republicans majorities in courts as In republican appointed judges.

                In those states they can pass legislation unchecked, just like a centralized government.

                “ What are these states doing that you consider as ruling as a centralized government?”

                How about Florida? The passed a law banning private businesses from requiring vaccination or testing. That’s a centralized government action.

                How about banning the teaching of CRT in schools? Shouldn’t parents decide what they want? That would be a violation of free speech rights. What a about those states that rammed thru constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage despite clear opposition from the minority?

                1. I live in California. My objections to the Democrat supermajority here would be similar to your objections regarding Republicans. But as long as we have a small “r” republican form of government in this country, then the actions taken by the state are limited to the state. If they are an abuse of power and/or violate the rights of the citizens, then the courts are the final remedy. I always have an option to move out of the state if I cannot find a local government that I find tolerable. So far so good. However when the abuse of power from a centralized government is at the federal level, then it becomes increasingly difficult to find a state to protect us from such an abuse. Centralized abuse of power at the federal level leaves citizens 3 options: Submit, Fight back, Leave the country.

                  1. Olly,

                    California is not big enough for the both of us. I’m not leaving. Wouldn’t you be cheerier in Texas?

                    1. You must not watch Fox prime time. They claim only cons and no pros. You must live on a military base.

                    2. Be that as it may, they ABSOLUTELY contend that the cons vastly outweigh the pros!

                      Give me one good reason that you remain in Ca. I asked Karen the same question, and she answered- if I recall correctly- taking care of her parents. What’s your excuse?

                    3. Give me one good reason that you remain in Ca.

                      Well silly, to cancel out your 1 legitimate vote, of course. 😉

                    4. Don’t bother. I don’t vote. No politician is worthy of my vote. I got them apolitical blues. I concern myself with law and order, not politics. I respect the court of law but not the court of public opinion. I cannot abide hypocrisy and lying which is why I hold Turley accountable in the former case and decry Trump in the latter.

                      Anyway, you are free to seek a haven in Texas. I will not to go to the polls. Pinkie promise.

                  2. Olly,

                    “ If they are an abuse of power and/or violate the rights of the citizens, then the courts are the final remedy.”

                    That’s not always the case in states where even the courts are more aligned with a supermajority in a state legislature. This is how Jim Crow laws became ubiquitous in the south and bans on interracial marriage. People in the south didn’t have the luxury of simply moving out of state. The federal government was forced to intervene which is how the civil rights came to be. As a check on states abusing the rights of its citizens.

                    1. That’s not always the case in states where even the courts are more aligned with a supermajority in a state legislature.

                      People always have the right to move from state to state. That right does not come with a guarantee it’s a luxury.

                      It’s always the correct remedy, as we well know, the court doesn’t always get it right. Neither does the executive or legislative branches.

            2. ” The Republicans primarily seek to create a less centralized government leaving more power to the states.”
              —–
              —Wrong. In states where republicans have supermajorities they rule as a centralized government.”

              Strike 3 of 3 and a half.

              What didn’t you understand in the words “leaving more power to the states”?

              That was the easy part and you missed that 100%. You then bring up the ACA that you obviously know nothing about.

  8. Superb column by Professor Turley. But it is not rage. The Democratic Party is a full fledged fascist party; committed to state control over the entire economy and using police state powers to suppress opposing speech. The leaders of the US Democratic party would feel at home in Putin’s Russia. Maybe that is why they opposed the sanctions bill sponsored by Ted Cruz

  9. BLM Rage
    Antifa Rage
    Democrat Party Rage

    It seems that tantrums, hate and violence are common features seen from the left.

  10. This year will be dramatic and a violent year. Democrats have gone to far they will lose power.

    The left will go Full Red Guard. They have abused power. 2022 the writing is on the wall.

    The majority of Americans don’t want rage politics.

    I don’t know that the election was stolen. But I don’t understand how Biden won 81 million votes from the basement.

  11. Corruption is our countries biggest problem! Further, it’s the world’s problem. And if it’s not rooted out, then, I’m afraid we all are in for a world of hurt. Even in everyday, mondaine jobs, there’s corruption. People I’ve worked with, lie, cheat, steal, and think nothing of it. In fact, they feel intitled, justified. This is the state of the world we now live in.

  12. “Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceases.”

    The legions of well funded malignant political activist groups in coordinated effort with corporate media do not have the best interest of this nation in mind, to say the least. Be damned what the rank and file American thinks.

    I admire leaders who have the guts to resist the power of group think. It requires integrity and courage to do the right thing, especially in the frightening echo chamber of instant media and group speak.

  13. Next week, the Administration “discovers” that the Executive Branch has the delegated authority to implement everything unilaterally, and then incorporates the bills’ provisions into a series of entries in the Federal Register – some emergency measures, some using normal APA rulemaking. Taking a page from Roger Goodell’s page, the Feds seek immediate declaratory relief in a friendly jurisdiction, which slow rolls the litigation track until it’s too late to prevent a blue wave in November.

  14. Can’t include all the hypocrisy

    That was a disgusting display, Dems honoring Dick Chenney in the floor of the house. All the vile accusations the dems hurled at Chenney, and they swallowed all that invective to generate publicity. Its laughable for dems to cliam they have a guiding principle. Besides gaining more power.

  15. Many Lefties are unhinged in their anger and bile.

    Just read Natacha’s posts yesterday.

    Every one of them talked with venom about Trump who has been gone a year. The woman can’t stop thinking about him (scorned lover?).

    But her language is the real key; full of terms that suggest mental instability.

    Natacha’s family needs to call a Red Flag warning on her.

    Natacha is this blog’s Squeeky Frome.

      1. I don’t doubt you want Liberals to stop reminding you of his lies that you swallowed. To be sure, it’s humiliating to you, and you want to move on. Not a chance. We will NEVER let you forget your Big Lie until you finally admit publicly that the election was NOT stolen. Are we clear?

  16. I wonder if the nation can survive the rage of Democratic politicians and their supporters in the media. It’s pretty clear that Dems are going to be bulldozed out of legislatures and executive branches in the states and federal government this fall. And that leads me to wonder how they will handle it. So far, they have not handled either their 2016 loss or their 2020 win particularly well, since it appear that the “dangers” of both Jan.6 and covid have been used to frighten Americans.

  17. When someone that’s part of the political left’s hive minded cult openly opposes something that the cult is pushing this is what happens, the “woke” eats their own.

    You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.

    1. The same can be said of Trump supporters. Those Trump supporters who openly oppose something trump is pushing or even mildly criticize are met with unhinged rage and instant vilification. Even Trump himself has been targeted for ridicule when he promoted the vaccine.

      It happens on the right as well.

      1. The lockstep heel-clicking dance of Democrats is not seen in the Republican Party of today. Sometimes Trump goes overboard, but all Republicans do not follow that with threats to those that do not follow. One has to distinguish the different ways the parties react.

        1. Anonymous,

          “ Trump goes overboard, but all Republicans do not follow that with threats to those that do not follow.”

          Yes they do. They follow out of fear from threats by Trump supporters. That’s how trump keeps republicans in line. Just look at Ted Cruz. He was threatened by Trump supporters vilified Ted in lockstep and Ted duly acquiesced like a good boy.

          Republicans do it all the time. It’s the norm.

          1. Are you actually an adult? Are you totally unaware of the division’s within the Republican Party? I have already commented to you once tonight, and it befuddled me that one could be lacking so much knowledge.

        1. Witherspoon, it still true isn’t it? That same rationalization was used by republicans during the Obama years. Even Trump’s own supporters use it when they are confronted about Trump’s lying. “All politicians lie”.

          1. Unethical rationalizations are unethical rationalizations no matter who uses them and trying to justify using a rationalization because others have or are using them is using the Golden Rationalization again. Try not to use rationalizations they are not arguments.

            1. Witherspoon, so why bother complaining? It may not be argument, but it’s still a relevant truth.

Leave a Reply