I created another thread in P&E where I wanted to discuss this in detail.
I think Pleonast has it right, but I’d add a subtle detail.
The only thing the founders did is say the Senate makes their own rules.
Those rules/norms have included some form of filibuster. In the olden days, it only took one person to filibuster. But the filibuster would only last as long as they were speaking. Later, by their own rules, the Senate invented the mechanism of voting on cloture to end a filibuster.
Late: Pleonast posted just before me. I think we are saying the same thing.
The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”
Cloture was introduced to the US Senate in 1917. Prior to that, there was no way to end debate.
See, a reasonable compromise was offered, and “sneered” at-
But Republicans quickly dismissed Schumer’s proposal, which hinges on protecting enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for at least one year.
Schumer’s proposal calls for Democrats to agree to pass a so-called clean resolution that would provide short-term funding for government operations.
In exchange, the New York lawmaker said, Republicans would agree to a separate one-year extension of existing enhanced tax credits that are used to reduce the cost of health insurance purchased on ACA marketplaces.
For some reason I can’t find any news reporting on it, but here in WA food stamps started paying out in full last night. My mother got the full amount she usually gets and our customers at work are definitely spending them.
Re only how to negotiate and not the merits. Democrats shouldn’t bid against themselves. You can’t go from demanding permanent subsidies to just one-year without getting anything in return for making that change. It’s a weak way to negotiate.
So now it’s “negotiating” no extension versus one year. You can sense this just isn’t going to happen.
It’s a tale as old as time in Congress. The two parties are at an impasse until someone eventually suggests “let’s keep everything the way it is until X months from now and we’ll figure it out then”. Then both parties spend the next X-1 months not figuring it out and we find ourselves back at square one.
This will end soon. The one-year offer was pure posturing for the midterms.
I previously thought the minimum Ds should get out of this is a separate vote on the subsidies bill. Not great but not nothing. Hopefully that’s enough to do well in the midterms. It’s shameful nothing happened because there are Republicans who would vote to pass subsidies.
I’d guess they pass a clean funding bill soon and later get to vote on the subsidies.
Chuck Schumer continues to have the political acumen of a damp sponge. At Thursday’s party caucus, he announced that he had found enough votes to reopen the government in exchange for (checks notes) zero Republican concessions of any kind.
The response from the other Democrats was so negative that the moderates who came up with the plan backed down.
I hope to God AOC primaries his ass and we kick him and the rest of this do-nothing gerontocracy to the curb.
There’s a theory I’ve seen on the Legal AF YouTube channel that posits that Mike Johnson is willing to keep the government shut down until the special election in Tennessee is over and certified.
The reason, this theory goes, is that the incoming red seat will cancel out Grijalva’s vote to release the Epstein files.
There are apparently reports going around from DOJ that the Epstein files make Trump look much MUCH worse than previously reported (and “previously reported” includes Michael Wolff saying there are photos of Trump receiving topless lapdances from underage girls) and that rumors are circulating amongst the House Republican caucus. I wouldn’t be surprised if it winds up not mattering and when he finally reconvenes the House there end up being more than enough votes anyway.
I understand that is what happened NOW. But PREVIOUSLY, he voted with the Repubs. If the Dems had taken a stance THEN, we wouldn’t be in this place now. (At least, not in this exact place.)
Grijalva’s would be the 218th signature on a discharge petition to bring the matter to a vote. Presumable the same 218 would vote yeah on the matter, which is a majority. The Tennessee seat in question is currently vacant, so it wouldn’t represent a flip. As such, that vote doesn’t matter.
Dina Doll and the Meidas Touch YouTube channel explain it better than I can in this 13 minute video. But, in essence, it this special election is certified and that representative is sworn in before Grijalva is, then she would no longer be the tie-breaker, and couldn’t force a vote on the discharge petition.
I don’t know what kind of math they’re using, and I’m not going to spend time watching a video to figure it out. There are currently 217 signatures on the discharge petition (link to petition). It takes 218 for a discharge petition to take effect. There’s no such thing as a negative signature. Grijalva will bring it to 218 no matter who is elected in Tennessee.