The American Coup: 11.9.2020 -

The only thing that can be done is for enough Republican senators to leave the Republican Caucus and caucus with the Democrats so that the Democrats can choose the majority leader. Collins has shown over and over again that it is more important to her to stick with the Republican Caucus than it is for her to advance policies that she supposedly favors.

To be fair, most legislators most of the time will vote with their caucuses to establish the house’s leadership. But Collins’s whole persona is based on her being a principled independent. But she never uses her power in a way that actually advances that persona in any practical way.

How about allowing one person total control over the appointment of every federal judge for 10 straight years (and counting)?

So, a total of $1800 over 10 months – if the $600 happens, which Trump has made iffy. A nice windfall for those not in need of money, but for anyone who genuinely needs help, it’s not even close to enough to cover rent, or food, or car payments, or any other common expense for more than a minute. Especially when it’s compared to the trillions to, for example, Joel Osteen.

Anybody remember this incident ?

I do. With horror.

You just have to wonder whether DJT might think pardoning these contractors (with whom regular military had a complicated relationship) might endear him to current military members who – in his fever dreams – he may decide to call upon to enforce Martial Law.

I think you’ll find the overt politicizing of the judiciary is not really a thing in extant Westminster-system countries. It could be, I suppose, but it isn’t. Part of that may be due to the relatively greater ease the legislatures in such systems have in overruling the courts.

This.

I’ve griped about this to friends and some will recite the stupid platitude, “Well, it’s better than nothing.” No, it’s not. It’s the same as nothing. For a family where the parent/s is/are out of work, no health insurance, paltry savings, a few kids, it’s the exact same thing as nothing.

In my pre-retirement line of work, fund-raising, I called this (cynically) the “kiss-off” gift. You go to a major corporation for a big donation, and they throw $1,000 at you to get rid of you.

The Senate could easily re-write its rules to allow the minority to bring votes to the floor. At the start of every Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives both have to agree on their rules. So every two years, there’s an opportunity to change that.

It’s particularly strange for the Senate, which purports to have this tradition of giving each senator extraordinary senatorial privileges—such as the ability to anonymously put a hold on any legislation, or the filibuster. You would think that under this principal, senators would insist on the right of each individual senator to bring a motion to the floor for a vote.

Unless of course Harris is Chair. Or the floor overrules him.

See, the Majority Leader is not supposed to be a one man dictator of the senate.

What_Exit Mod Trainee 3rd Class

Modhat : “Please end the gun hijack of the thread. If you want to talk guns, start a new thread and probably not in P&E.”

Because by tradition, the President pro tem always recognizes him first. Should Harris sit as Chair, the President pro tem has nothing to do.

Modnote: Drop the gun sidebar please. It is not a part of this thread.

No, not at all. If the Dems get 51 votes, then Mitch is no longer the Senate Majority leader.

We had this conversation in another thread. I will concede that were Harris to break the precedent of recognizing the Senate Majority Leader first AND was supported procedurally by a majority of Senators in doing so, she could probably get away with it. But I cannot imagine a single Republican Senator going along with this. You wouldn’t just be ignoring precedent for one popular bill or nomination – you’d be removing that precedent for all time. You would effectively be handing control of the chamber over to the Vice President in perpetuity.

:woman_facepalming:t4:

Duh.

Should there someday be a Republican vice president and a Democratic senate, do you think that VP would be bound by the existing precedent?

Precedent is precedent until it isn’t. But I think this whole conjecture is pointless. If Republicans maintain a majority of seats after the Georgia runoffs, Mitch McConnell will be Majority Leader. If for some reason Harris tried to break with the precedent of recognizing the Majority Leader first, every Republican would vote to overrule her. And since they’d have the majority, they would win.

And if she tried some other shit (say not recognizing the motion to overrule the chair), they would walk out and shut down the Senate — Constitutionally the Senate must have a quorum (51 Senators) to conduct any business.

There just isn’t some magic maneuver to wrest control out of McConnell’s hands as long as his caucus is unified behind him.

Even if they end up getting $2000 - which they likely won’t - it’s too late for many.

Nice to know that Republicans in the Senate have better things to do than to make sure that small businesses survive and that renters have a roof over their heads.

…but, but, Rand Paul says it’s nothing but free money, and stuff.
I really don’t expect anyone to be masochistic enough to actually sit through the whole fucking thing.

How does Rand feel about Tax Incentives for Yachts?

All peachy keen with those, I bet.

https://www.gmyachts.com/2019/07/31/tax-incentives-for-yacht-purchases-until-2022/

To hopefully cap off this not-coup-related issue - my google-fu is failing me in locating the six Repuiblicans (or, five, RP’s company included) who voted against the bill.
Even out to a pub, it takes a lot to get me up for darts, but if I ever found out who these stinkards were, pictures of their faces are getting made into dartboard backdrops.