Davincia wrote:Roosevetania wrote:Senator Ernst laughs at the ridiculousness. "'That much power?' Mr. President, the minority has the right to have a voice! My colleague is suggesting that the majority should do everything with no input from the minority, and that having a voice is too much power! These words are dangerous for our democracy! Democracy demands dissent! It thrives when everyone has a voice! It's not 'power,' it's the right to not be shut out from the proceedings of this body! Mr. President, it is shameful that the member has suggested that Senators opposing him don't deserve to have a voice! Clearly, anyone who has this attitude towards democracy does not deserve to hold power."
"Mr. President, I would like to take the time to indulge my colleague with the fact that there is a difference between the minority having a voice and the minority granting consent alongside the majority. The majority has already been democratically elected, the minority thus lacks the same powers granted to its opponent. This is not a complicated matter."
Mr. President, it is the current standing rules, authored by none other than the majority leader herself and democratically approved by this Senate that demands the minority be given a say.
It is this amendment which allows for a single senator - the majority leader - to rush through any legislation they wish, with no consent from anyone else. One Senator would be able to pick and choose which legislation is exempted from the standard 3 readings. And this isn't just any senator, it is the one who just attempted to unconstitutionally approve a judge without consent of the president. The Senate can not afford to put so much trust in the majority leader to allow them to unilaterally direct the agenda.
