Nothing. That’s why they are the minority party.
Anyway, I was objecting to the post that seemed to imply that such sessions were somehow new or irregular. They are not.
I don’t think that was the point of RTFirefly’s post about the short sessions though, he was agreeing with JohnT that this is undeniably a Republican shutdown since they’re the ones who decided not to have any meaningful sessions, not implying anything about the novelty or regularity of those sessions.
The D’s need 13 Republican Senators to pass a C.R. or Budget; they need 20 R Senators (and about 55 R’s in the House) to override a veto. Is there any chance the R’s would vote to override a veto, or would that be too insulting to Dear Orange Leader? (The Senate passed the earlier vetoed C.R. 100 to 0!)
In news reports it often sounds like Mitch McConnell controls the Senate, almost as if the other 99 Senators are irrelevant! What would it take for the Senate to say [del]“Shut the fuck up, Mitch!”[/del] “We respectfully override the Majority Leader”? 51 Senators? 60 Senators? 27 Republican Senators with Dems irrelevant?
IMO, which you all are free to mock, Trump HAS to build that damn wall (I agree with the majority of Dopers that it will be useless). If he is perceived as weak on this issue and/or he loses the support of Limbaugh, Coulter, and some of the other whackos, much of his base is going to desert him. If that happens, he is gone and he knows it.
I think that the Orange Butt Boil is a fool, but he has a conman’s instincts. He knows he has to deliver on this.
What steronz said. My point isn’t that there’s anything unusual about a pro forma session. But having no more than a pro forma session while you’re in control of Congress during a government shutdown does demonstrate a distinct lack of interest in resolving said shutdown.
Today is Day 13 of the shutdown, and Paul Ryan will still be Speaker of the House until noon. He could still hold a vote this morning on the CR that the Senate passed 100-0, and if it passed (as is likely), the CR would go straight to Trump’s desk.
But once he gives up the gavel at noon, it’s a new Congress, and that Senate bill won’t be a live bill any more; the new Congress, now under divided rather than unified control, will have to start from zero in its efforts to resolve the shutdown, due to Ryan’s abdication of responsibility.
And that is precisely why the Dems must stop him.
Individual-1 thinks he can’t back down because it would make him look foolish.
Um, well, let’s talk about that for a moment, shall we?
He evidently said he “*would *look foolish,” which is a much more accurate—albeit completely unnecessary—statement.
which was exactly what Pelosi said at the time, but Trump insisted on having a big press event where he thought he could display his amazing negotiating skills, but instead looked like a spoiled child.
Agreed. The Dems have already presented a compromise bill that were supported by the vast majority of Republicans, and even Trump at first, and just now passed a bill that would defuse the current crisis but allow further negotiations. All Trump has done is repeat the mantra “Give me 5 Billion dollars so I can say I won and you lost”. How are they supposed to find a compromise with that?
Who is “they”?
Trump wanted the cameras. Pelosi asked they not be there and Trump insisted.
Stop making this a “both sides are just as bad” false equivalency.
Trump and the impotent Republicans own this.
McConnell has said he won’t allow a vote on a bill if the president says he won’t sign it, which precludes the chance for a veto override.
It has been said that the GOP will abandon democracy before it abandons its unpopular positions. Now we are seeing that not allowing voting is pretty much what the modern GOP is all about. But we should have known that when they refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland.
Only one side is acting in good faith within the Democratic system, and it is not the GOP. They don’t have the votes for their proposal. That should be it- holding 800,000 people’s jobs hostage is not honorable or acceptable.
And with this comment, McConnell has abandoned any pretense that there are any other branches of government aside from the Executive Branch. That’s it, as far as he’s concerned. King Trump is ordained by God Himself, and none shall question that.
The guy that spent eight years trashing the executive in order to “defend the nation” is now happily watching the executive put hundreds of thousands out of work? No way! Must be a Democrat, because they’re EVUL!
What’s the answer to question in #243 ?
There is no answer in the real world.
There’s no effective discharge petition in the Senate, unlike the House, that provides for a bill to get a vote despite the opposition of the Majority Leader (or Speaker).
So, the Senate Majority Leader has a veto power that is truly absolute? Then, is it even possible for the Senate to choose a new leader?
Now, that isn’t really fair. But then again, the rules seem to be different these days, and maybe you’d like to take this opportunity to explain to us where the lines are now.
First, there has to be someone else willing to try. Maybe Romney has it in him. The problem isn’t McConnell, it’s the rest of them.
It isn’t a veto power. It is the power to set the schedule. It is almost absolute, but not quite, as there are a few types of legislation that are guaranteed a vote within a certain timeframe if certain conditions are met. For example, the War Powers Act requires either house of Congress to vote on a resolution to withdraw troops from a war zone if the deployment hasn’t been authorized. But those exceptions are really special cases, so in the case of 99% of bills that may be proposed, the Majority Leader has final say on what gets a vote.
And yes, Republicans could choose a new leader if they wanted. But Republicans chose to keep McConnell: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/14/schumer-mcconnell-retain-senate-leadership-posts-after-midterms.html