By people who have to buy new pants by the gross as theirs keep spontaneously combusting.
Less than a Millicent, i.e 1000th of a cent.
The Dems logic is they are gonna hold out until the GOP sits down to negotiate. Yes, the Dems want the ACA funded, but the GOP hasnt even made a counter-offer.
Which, realistically, they will have to do soon. The CR the House passed in September, before Mike Johnson decided they never have to deal with the Epstein files if they never convene ever again, would only have funded the government through 11/21. Thune clearly has no interest in Mad King Donald’s demands to “terminate the filibuster”. Once that CR expires, the House will have to reconvene to pass a new one, there’ll be one more Democratic member to seat, and fewer Republicans with the stomach to stick to the “starve the poor” strategy.
To get a majority sure. But not so if you have a majority vote on a motion that you still have to compromise with the minority.
But then the Founders also never intended to set up a system where Congress and the Supreme Court would refuse to check the autocratic ambitions of a mentally ill child molester, either.
Hey don’t talk about Thomas Jefferson like that
I don’t understand your point. Compromise means that each side gives up something to gain something. In other words, yes; a majority has to accept less than they want, and give concessions to the minority. That’s what ‘compromise’ means. It sounds like you’re saying, ‘You have to compromise to get the majority, only the majority shouldn’t give anything up.’
The 60 votes for cloture is not in the Constitution; it’s a rule the Senate majority imposes on itself. It can relieve itself of that rule at will.
And enough Senate Republicans fear what would happen if the tables turned (can’t gerrymander the Senate!), that they are not ready to undo the rule … as of today.
Good Originalists that they are, they’d be relieving themselves of any mechanism to ever end debate.
Allowing a simple majority to run roughshod over the minority is not what the Founders created.
Republicans are indeed allowing Trump to violate budget laws with no consequences. Until this stops, what’s the point of budget laws?
We’re talking about a legislative body where half the population elects 28 Senators, and the other half elects 72. It’s kind of silly to insist that not allowing laws to pass with a simple majority is somehow contrary to the principles of “democracy”.
I find myself wondering what Chessic, and those arguing against them, believe they are accomplishing. No criticism of either. You are certainly free to express your views. But I’m curious about your motivations. It seems you have plainly set out your positions, and repeated posts do little to develop those positions, and seem to have ZERO possibility of changing anyone else’s views.
I’ve expressed my views, so I will not restate them. I’d love to hear a clear explanation from Schumer as to why he felt it appropriate to give in to the Repubs in March, but not now. Of course, the fact that someone made a mistake in the past is no reason they should be committed to repeating that mistake in the future. I could imagine him messaging that the hope was that by a sign of good faith, the Repubs would act more “decently.” But practice has shown the opposite, so there is no reason to give them an extended opportunity now.
If I have 51 votes out of 100 to donate $500 to Miss Polly’s Cat Rescue, in what deliberative body system other than the Senate would I need to compromise to get 9 more votes?
Well, at the very least, we’re accomplishing staying on topic. If you prefer the other style of posting, head on over to the 1000 post-long “Trump is dying” thread where they’re discussing -checks notes- whether CT scans give you skin cancer and -checks again- Utah hair styles.
Horatio asked a question. I answered it. I’ve been furloughed for almost a month and a half at this point. If you want me to quit posting, tell Schumer to vote to send me back to work.
If the shutdown ends, how do you know Russ Vought don’t just fire you or your whole office a month later? I’m currently working without a paycheck. I want this White House to stop violating budget laws so I know federal jobs don’t just exist at the whim of this administration.
At the risk of upsetting Dinsdale, I’ll answer your question…
If the shutdown continues, how do I know Russ Vought won’t just fire me and my office? Seems like that’s a higher probability than being funded. In either case, that’s the least of my worries. My COTR can just up and decide one day that my contract is terminated or not renewed. Then I’ll just get another contract somewhere else. A whim of the administration? My job exists at the whim of a single GS-15. It’s on me to provide stellar support to my customer so that doesn’t happen. That’s the game I signed up for, but at least that would be a usual, regular thing that’s fair play, not the first or largest firing in US history. At least then I’d know I was unemployed, not some sort of quasi-employed, maybe-next-week, maybe-in-December, also-you-can’t-work-anywhere-else employed.
That doesn’t apply to me or federal workers like me – I think most of us aren’t working at the whims of a single manager, and we’re terrified at an administration ready and willing to, in violation of the law (even if Congress and the DoJ refuse to enforce it) fire wide swaths of workers for no reason and at the drop of a hat.
Simple majority rule is what the Founders created within each house of Congress. The majority of the House sets the rules of the House. The House minority only has what power the majority is willing to give them. Likewise with the Senate. The Senate majority sets the rules and decides how much power the minority gets. All minority power in a house of Congress is at the discretion of its respective majority.
Where the Founders did require compromise is between each House of Congress with the other and between Congress and the President. And to a lesser extent, with them and the Courts.
I’m not aware of the details of the history, but hasn’t some sort of filibuster-type provision existed in every Congress going back to the first one? If so, even though it’s custom rather than law, it would seem fair to say that “the Founders created it”.
It’s correct to say that the Senate has always had rules permitting a minority to stop legislation, because of the choices made by the first and all later Senates. But the filibuster is not inherent to the Senate. The Founders did not write those rules into the Constitution when they had the opportunity to do so. That is, the Senate as created by the Constitution, gives its power to a simple majority of its members, with exceptions explicitly explained.