I’m pretty sure we should stop using this argument.
You’re probably right.
The PPT continues to have all the rights of a Senator. Leahy does not lose his vote as President Pro Tem.
Compared to the optics of saying they would not allow the President to nominate a replacement to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court? The Republicans got away with that in 2016 and didn’t pay a price in the next election.
McConnell and the other Republicans in Congress have no shame or morality. The only consequences they fear are going to prison or losing an election.
Yes, that is the important part. Biden will be free to appoint his cabinet, and the courts. Maybe, just maybe, if Joe does something way out of character for a SCOTUS nom, it might not get Oked.
Routine bills will just be passed. The $2000 check will be passed. ACA will be strengthened.
But some parts might not be, such as parts of the Green New Deal (Joes like it on principle but hasn’t ever said he will push it thru).
So anything radical will have a problem.
Mitch already nuked the filibuster- the parts he needed to get rid of. Since the GOP has shown they will cheerfully nuke the filibuster any time they need to, it should be gotten rid of.
Except that it didnt work out for trump like he thought. Yes his three judges are conservative. But not puppets.
Yes, I’m saying that the two cases are not comparable.
Who makes the Senate rules?
I said Republican judges not Trump judges. Trump isn’t the Republican party, despite whatever he imagined. Trump was just a tool the Republican party used for four years.
Trump will be out of a job in two weeks. Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas will still be working.
Okay, agree to disagree.
Other than some things that are mandated by the Constitution, the Senate essentially makes its own rules for itself.
It seems to me that deciding which bills will be voted on his a pretty bad idea.
It’s Politics 101.
Joe Manchin has already nixed that. The Dems would need a defector from the other side of the aisle to get rid of the filibuster.
Then the vote is, “that the president be disagreed with”, and it’s up to the floor to decide. But it doesn’t really matter: majority leader is just an organizational position, and without a majority on the floor, is irrelevant. It’s the majority on the floor that matters for proposing and proceeding with legislation or appointments.
Thin majorities generally lead to very tight party discipline. Ties generally lead to organisational failure and stasis.
We had a tie some while back in our state House. They chose to put forth co-speakers. I found that to be particularly disgusting.
It’s all speculation until it happens. If Leahy as PPT recognized Schumer as Majority Leader, he would be subject to a motion to “overturn the ruling of the chair.” But that requires a majority (i.e. 51 Senators) so if party discipline held his ruling would stand. Then Schumer can bring bills and nominations to the floor, and try to pick off Republicans on any given vote. Maybe he can get a Susan Collins to cooperate, but in that case why wouldn’t she just cross the aisle and join the Democratic Caucus?
Historically, Senate ties tend to be short lived. Of the three previous occurrences, Senate ties in 2001 and 1954 only lasted a few months. That 1954 session (the 83rd) was wild – NINE Senators died in office over the course of the session. Control of the chamber switched hands twice.
I completely agree. Unfortunately I think the Dems are going to try as hard as possible not to nuke the filibuster and I’m trying to be realistic.
This is why I think it’s worth it to have the fight over something like voting rights. If the Republicans filibuster that it seems like the position that the Dems should never get rid of the filibuster no matter what gets more and more untenable. At some point the Dems may have to choose between the filibuster and their electoral survival (not to mention maintaining the democratic progress we’ve made since the 60’s) and I really hope Manchin and the rest aren’t going to go down with that ship.
I do not think it is “unfortunate”, per se, but it needs to be properly adhered to: if you want a filibuster, you have to stand up and talk without cease.