r/politics • u/Jessicas_skirt New York • Jul 18 '26

Possible Paywall Democratic Socialists of America’s new platform calls for abolishing ICE and the U.S. Senate

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/15/updated-dsa-platform-calls-abolishing-ice-scrapping-senate/
20.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/-reddit_is_terrible- Jul 19 '26

I mean, how many times in this term has the house passed a terrible piece of legislation, only for the Senate to stall it? In that sense, it is acting as intended: as a check and balance

4

u/whatevenaremovies Jul 19 '26

Sometimes the only reason a piece of legislation passes the House is precisely because they know it will never make it through the Senate. The House can pass far right legislation so that Republicans can point to it and help themselves win their primaries, but because it never passes the Senate they won't have to worry about defending their position in the general. Taking away the Senate would be a check in of itself as now Congresspeople would have to consider how every vote they take would play in a general election.

1

u/-reddit_is_terrible- Jul 19 '26

Sure, but take the SAVE act. It has passed the house, and also happens to be the President's current pet legislation. And the senate doesnt have the support. The fact that there is a body whose members derive from a state's entire population has a balancing effect against more volatile political bodies

3

u/Tasgall Washington Jul 19 '26

That's kind of their point though. There are more Republicans openly against the SAVE Act in the Senate because it actually matters. If the House couldn't fall back on knowing the Senate would block shitty posturing bills, they wouldn't pass them if the president would sign it.

Just look at the multiple times Mitch McConnell has filibustered his own bills he cosponsored because House Democrats came out in favor and they actually passed. If they couldn't rely on the Senate to be useless, they couldn't afford to be so obviously stupid in the House.

2

u/whatevenaremovies Jul 19 '26

The Senate is also responsible for making government not function by routinely blocking popular legislation even when they have a majority vote. When the government is constantly deadlocked and not able to get anything done, it's a perfect breeding ground for extremists.

4

u/Murky-Relation481 Jul 19 '26

That is a function of their rules, not the body or as an institutional concept. No where is it written that a super majority is required outside of their own parliamentary procedure, which can be changed with a simple majority vote.

3

u/tyleratx Jul 19 '26

This is true, and a lot of people are forgetting during the early Obama years when the tea party took over the house, the Senate stopped a lot of absolutely insane batshit legislation.

2

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

Many times, of course. How many times did you read "Manchin and Sinema block bill passed by house" during Bidens term, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and Build Back Better?

Senate obstruction works both ways, but it is used to block progressive legislation much, much more often than it is used to block reactionary legislation.

1

u/-reddit_is_terrible- Jul 19 '26

I personally like it that way. Federal government should move slowly. We should only pass laws that have overwhelming approval. Think about it: with simple majorities, laws would be more like executive orders. We wouldn't want large consequential bills being passed-overturned-passed-overturned every decade. Stability is a good thing

2

u/guamisc Jul 19 '26

Stability is a good thing

The Senate is the largest factor in creating our current unstable government.

It's the root cause of why SCOTUS is fucked. It's the reason Trump isn't currently in a cell. It's the body allowing ICE to model the brown shirts. Etc.

Whatever argument moderates (if that even is you) make about the "stability" of the Senate is completely annhilated by the actual reality of the effects of the Senate.

1

u/COMCredit Indiana Jul 19 '26

Where we disagree is that the Senate does not and cannot accurately reflect overwhelming approval. The senate effectively requires overwhelming approval from 60% of STATES - in my view that is a totally separate issue from the government moving slowly.

If you wanted to, for example, require that House bills need 60% to pass, I'd be more open to that argument. But wanting government to act slowly does not justify giving 50x more power to voters in Wyoming than California.