This Week I Learned: Venus, Filibuster, Court Packing
Historical events continue to be relevant in modern times. In recent days there’s been talk of court packing in relation to the Supreme Court, and the potential elimination of the Senate filibuster. But first, space exploration continues to shape our future.
Life In Space
Finally some good news from 2020 was shared when scientists added Venus to the list of planets that could possibly support life. Phosphine is the reason for this discovery as it’s a gas produced by organic life forms.
Nothing definitive can be said yet about previous or current life on Venus. But NASA is considering two potential missions to learn more. One would photograph the surface of Venus, the other would collect air samples with hopes of collecting more information about phosphine levels.
History of the Court Packing Debate
After the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the conversation around her death turned political. Would Republicans rush to appoint her replacement? If successful, how would Democrats respond?
One of the responses being floated is the next Democrat president increasing the size of the Supreme Court to give it a liberal consensus. Interesting enough, Franklin D. Roosevelt once threatened to expand the size of the court to protect his New Deal initiatives like Social Security and Labor Rights.
This threat of court packing was very unpopular among the public, Congress, and Supreme Court justices. But it worked. Two justices came to support the constitutionality of his New Deal initiatives giving it the majority opinion of the court.
The Filibuster Has Always Been a Mistake
The Senate filibuster has made its way into the news as a point of disagreement between Democrats. If they win the presidency, should they abolish the filibuster so they can pass legislation through a majority-controlled Senate?
For those who don’t know, the filibuster currently means the minority party can hold up votes on legislation because current rules say you need 60 members to agree on advancing to voting on a piece of legislation.
What doesn’t seem to be getting that attention is that this rule was an accident. The removal of the “previous question” motion in the senate and led to this 60% agreement to move to the vote. The House of Representatives meanwhile, did not remove the “previous question” motion and therefore do not have the same problem as the Senate.
