The Senate parliamentarian has once again handed down a ruling that irks progressives, and as usual progressive Twitter is outraged. Why does an unelected bureaucrat get to make these decisions? Chuck Schumer should fire her. The president of the Senate should overrule her.
This is so stupid and so tedious. Every legislative body has a parliamentarian. Her job is not to make the rules, only to enforce them. In this case it's the Byrd Rule that's up for interpretation, and the Byrd Rule says that you can pass legislation in the Senate with 51 votes only if it directly affects the budget. The legislation at hand concerns a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and the parliamentary ruling on it was a no-brainer: Its effect on the budget is plainly incidental to its primary purpose. This means Republicans can filibuster it, which in turn means it needs 60 votes to pass.
This was never seriously in question and has nothing to do with the parliamentarian. Anyone would have handed down the same ruling.
So what about just firing her or overruling her? Sure, you could do this, but it's effectively the same as eliminating the filibuster. You'd be giving the Senate majority leader the ability to block a filibuster anytime he feels like it.
So forget about the parliamentarian. The underlying key to every problem in the Senate is unanimous consent in general and the filibuster in particular. If you want to fix the Senate, getting rid of those things is the only way. But you need 51 votes to do it, and right now Democrats don't have 'em. Until they do, nothing else matters.
End the filibuster, augment SCOTUS, and get some shit done. Enough.
Abolish the Senate.
If I were the Queen of France, I surely would.
Oh, and tax the billionaires. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/18/house-democrats-tax-billionaires-biden-social-policy
At the very least, move to talking filibuster requirement.
Go back to the "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" model. Filibuster can delay a vote and highlight an issue--but not completely stop a vote.
Like Harold Hill, the GQP can talk, they can talk, they can talk... but they don't know the territory, don't know the territory.
Where the one who wishes to filibuster must continue speaking - so long as there is quorum in the chamber.
Make Big Declarative Declarations on Twitter and Blogs. Pretend it is Very Important.
The status quo is fine for Joe Manchin and his constituents. I agree with him... let's just stop trying to achieve anything new. With any luck, the republicans will refuse to raise the debt limit, shut down the government completely, and leave us all alone.
Meanwhile, the US military is still doing stupid stuff.
"The Fourth Infantry Division’s First Stryker Brigade was wrapping its flags to mark the beginning of its latest deployment. It was going back to Iraq. Though the mission may have dropped from public attention, the United States still has boots on the ground in the other nation it invaded in the wake of 9/11. About 2,500 American troops are in Iraq now, the embers of what was once a scorching and divisive war, now carefully scattered to protect a few strategic bases. For the next nine months, roughly 2,000 soldiers from First Brigade will take over much of that duty."
Idiots. Propping up another corrupt regime and wasting my money in the process.
Being ordered to..,
Lol, not raising the debt limit doesn't shut down the government, it destroys the currency and debt liquidation here we come. It's stupid and would go a lot of Republicans being killed. Sound good????
Yes - I understand those are different things, but with Biden and the radical democrats being the threat they are, what choice do patriotic republicans have but to tank the economy?
Lolz, nope. Republicans towns would be starving within a year as rich suburbs would become "safe zones" as they buy up farm production and land.
Becoming a oakie they will be.
The question of the filibuster needs to be framed with the uttermost simplicity and clarity. Any supermajority requirement is undemocratic, because wherever there is a supermajority requirement, the minority wins. Confine it to that and hammer the sh1t out of it.
Except, you dont need 51 votes in the Senate to fire the parliamentarian, and if that destroys the filibuster, oh dear how sad. Or am I misreading you ?
Agree with firefa11. Trent Lott fired and replaced the parliamentarian in order to get a desired rule interpretation. All that takes is an action by the Majority Leader. The filibuster is an abomination that should be destroyed OR rendered moot. Hiring a new parliamentarian with an incredibly broad interpretation of the sorts of bills that have budgetary impact does the latter. Sinema and Manchin can whine and howl - which is good if that serves their electoral interests. The rest of us will be able to watch our democracy not die. Schumer should grow a pair and do this in the dead of night.
The problem with going down that road is that would make all rules meaningless.
Too late
As Dee Znutz observes, that ship sailed long ago. What you have is one political party that does not honor the customs or norms or the senate (or even of the society at large) which is tepidly opposed by an opposition party that does not respond in kind. As I've pointed out many times before, this does not preserve the past norms but rather simply encourages new trashing of norms because it can be done without consequences.
The reason why it's supposedly "unthinkable" to trash a norm is usually fear of unleashing others to do exactly the same. But our political system permits the GOP to enjoy total freedom of action to violate norms but since the Democrats are unalterably committed to not engaging in reprisals or even taking advantage of the norm having been removed, it just generates more and more trashing of norms by Republicans.
The precedent is clear: Schumer can do whatever he wants. If he fails to respond, the GOP will not applaud his restraint and return the favor when they return to the majority in 2022.
Lolz, nope. Schumer doesn't even have a real majority. Got it yet fool??? Your consistently are the most retarded poster. I mean, you just don't get it.
You are correct that McConnell has violated rule and precedent with impunity, but Schumer is not free to fight fire with fire, because the parties’ ranks-and-files are quite different. Republican voters tolerate all sorts of antidemocratic means to the end of gaining and holding on to power - they are, in their own minds, the Real Americans saving the country from Socialists and Those People. By contrast, proposals to pack the Supreme Court have very little traction with Democratic voters, despite their strong opposition to Citizens United, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and the threat to Roe v. Wade.
Your point is irrelevant. Democrats don't have the votes in general. Socialism?? Where?? Considering the anti-court history and anti-"political " democracy, you need to educate yourself.
I think you're reading too much into the surveys saying that Democrats are more open to compromise. I don't think the base of the Democratic Party or the recently acquired independents will abandon the party en masse if the Democratic leadership doesn't roll over and play dead. The assumption that most Democratic voters arehave no deep commitments to anything and are mainly interested in appeasing Republicans at all costs is mistaken. I think an occasional knee to McConnell’s balls would be very much welcomed by most Democrats.
At this point, there’s really very little to be gained by voting for the Democrats. The writing is on the wall; whether the transformation into a one-party state happens in 2022 or 2024 or 2025 is just a question of timing. At this point, it seems more practical to simply begin building an opposition party that’s capable of opposing. The time and money spent giving Democrats power has obviously been wasted since they're incapable or unwilling to use it.
Mitch you are really in a dark place today. Of course the GOP wants you in that dark place of despair so you surrender and let them take over. I won't surrender, gonna fill out my Virginia ballot for Terry & Co. and push my pols to continue the good fight.
Mitch is a moron. He also doesn't understand how reconciliation works. Not everybody gets what they want. Nobody gives a sheet about dreamers. Why it was even there, tells me who should be purged from the party
Republicans got open seats in Penn, Ohio and NC. Probably Iowa. Major swing voter states. A Traitor in Wisconsin. It's a weak election for them. Mitch is to stupid to realize that. They don't give a shit about Dreamers, immigrants and in Iowa's case, due to the last 20 years of experience with them, have become hostile. Mitch needs a brass knuckle sandwich and completely removed from the Democratic party.
Mitch, Democrats have strong commitments to equal rights and equal justice; to providing for the basic needs of food, shelter, healthcare and education for all, and more. Biden has proposed programs more progressive than anything we have seen since LBJ. Schumer will get as much of this passed as 51 votes can do, but neither Biden nor Schumer is a dictator, and two of those votes have to come from Manchin and Sinema.
Name George Clinton as Senate Parliamentarian.
Tear the roof off the sucker!
Funkadelic.
Why is it that one side generally plays by the rules whilst the other just blunders along, negativity, making up their own rules as they go along. Of course, those rules are also subject to change.
This isn't democracy.
Incorrect, but that is your fault. The rulings exist because that is how reconciliation is done. There are not enough votes for it anyway which is why your post is dead.
Specific to the legalization of 11 million dreamers, its not clear to me that, even if the parliamentarian had allowed its inclusion in the reconciliation bill, there are 50 votes (Manchin???) for this policy.
The filibuster isn’t even a thing; it is the absence of a thing, which is, a standing rule limiting debate (the House has such a rule). Senators must act affirmatively to close off debate and bring a bill to a floor vote. This has been justified by proposing that if the Senate is ‘closely’ divided, continuing debate might change enough Senators’ minds as to change the outcome of the vote on passage. (‘Close’ was first one-third/two-thirds, now two-fifths/three-fifths. Nowhere near ‘close’ by modern standards). But it has virtually always been used for the opposite reason - because the minority was dead set on killing a bill. In short, the rule is virtually never invoked in good faith. It needs to go.
The parliamentarians are irrelevant as long as you have the votes for rule exceptions. Democrats who are pushing this do not have the votes. Drum is a dummy.
This is a situation where not having 60 votes actually hurts republicans, not democrats. The Congressional Budget Act, Section 313 clearly says that the presiding officer, VP Harris, decides what can and cannot go into the reconciliation bill. The word "parliamentarian" appears nowhere in that section. The CBA, Section 904, clearly says that it takes 60 votes to sustain a point of order questioning the presiding officer. Why democrats won't use those rules to their advantage is beyond me.
While you are likely right on the language, the challenge is the historic norm. I have seen a similar argument about the Supreme Court: Biden could just ignore the a Supreme Court ruling. After all, what is the Supreme Court's recourse...
And the Democrats are ignoring the law and preserving the senate tradition at the cost of their agenda for what reason?
To anyone that has read this far south; I have been wondering how to get a message to the filibuster holdouts, [Manshin and Senema] et al, that might get their attention. [Beyond including a large check or cash incentive which they already seem to get from the folks that need the status quo to continue].
I read that I'm not supposed to belittle them. Or otherwise call them out fore their "closely held beliefs". And who are the people that make up their staff? It is frustrating in the extreme to be this close to driving another nail in the coffin that is Trumpism and having a so called "D" be the reason we fail again.
I think the thing to do is to negotiate directly with the people who give them money. For example, find the 10 worst things the federal government can done to Exxon and its CEO and start working through them until they get the message that the filibuster has to go.
I understand all this “when they go low, we go high” crap but I think a better slogan is that you can get more done with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.
Filibuster.... sounds smart and democratic. Maybe we should introduce it in my Sweden as well .
Let’s see, we are having 8 parties in the parliament. Four of them are teeming up , more or less , and cooperating in running the country.
The other four are outside of governing since they are having an agenda of their own . The Liberals (don’t fool yourself, it’s a right leaning party) the Moderates (aka the conservatives) the Christ Democrats and the despicable xenophobic Sweden Democrats .
This will work just beautiful!
Imagine if our PM will put something up for voting and a majority of representatives are in support.... but one of those despicable Sweden Democrats is lazily waving his left hand saying:
“I will get up on that podium and talk for 40 hours nonstop, except for the short breaks that is allowed... but I will actually not do it physically since I am a little lazy I will just pretend to do it “
Okay says the PM , forget about it , I will drop this issue.
Smart and democratic, we must learn how to do it from the United States of America , a true beacon of freedom and democracy
Your smugness is unbecoming, especially when you don’t fully understand the issue. The Senate has no standing rule limiting debates; instead, Senators must vote to end debate on a bill (the vote is called cloture). Cloture was was used in Westminster systems before the Senate adopted it. No one Senator, not even a small group of Senators, can defeat a cloture motion; currently, if there are no vacant seats, it requires 60 Senators to pass a cloture motion, so at most it takes 41 votes to defeat one. In principle, and former practice, debate on the main motion then continues, requiring the marathon speeches that give the filibuster its name. In recent times, the Senate has permitted itself to move on with other business after a failed cloture vote.
Answer to my comments usually starts with:
“You don’t fully understand..”
I am well informed on the filibuster .
It’s a farce!
.. at least if one is informed on how democracy version 3.0 is working, the version used in the 21th century.
My answer to you is that you don’t understand how it works elsewhere and because of this not fully understanding how profoundly ridiculous the filibuster is
Besides, you need a foreign troll . I have checked in on and of since Mr Drum opened up this site but never bothered to log in . Discussions are a little provincial and bloodless
Have a nice day but it’s getting late over here
The notion that the privilege of unlimited debate would be used to, you know, actually debate an issue may have been hopelessly naïve, but I wouldn’t call it farcical. And it is the principle of full and unrestricted debate which creates the need for the cloture vote. That is not the problem. The problem is that a supermajority is needed to invoke cloture, and that due to the structure of the US Senate, a ‘sub-minority’ representing an even smaller minority of citizens can frustrate the will of a strong majority.
The purpose of the Senate was to give upper classes control of the , slightly, more democratic House of Representatives since your Founding Fathers definitely wasn’t interested in democracy.
The Senate is a catastrophe today and the filibuster makes it look like a farce..
Actually your comment was spot on with the main difference being the 8 parties.
In YOUR case wouldn't 1 of the parties then threaten to abandon the coalition if the other group proposed the filibuster type speeches?
This brings us right back to where we are at. Manchin and Sinema are being called republican lite which sounds like a 3rd party.......