So he is telling them to ignore the rules and do it anyway?
Their plan is just do it whether it's legal or not, it only matters if somebody actually stops them.
The whole system is being dismantled to the point I keep wondering when it'll suffer total structural collapse. It's less about the "doom" part than the lingering anxiety over the "impending" part.
It probably won't collapse completely anytime soon. It'll just be warped beyond recognition while the people who are in denial fight tooth and nail to keep the system from collapsing.
All the while, this warped system will continue to benefit Trump until him or his successor gains enough power to no longer need the old system and can dismantle them completely without meaningful opposition.
You get to learn a fun new term: Cascading failures. Ooooh boy it's a good one.
If the Senate can just "overrule" the parliamentarian whenever they want, what's the point of having one?
I mean in the end, it really doesn't matter. I don't know whether to call it a game of Calvinball or Who's Line is it Anyway, but the end result is about the same: They're just making up the rules as they go along, and ignoring their own rules once they become inconvenient, and not even trying to hide the fact that the actual rules (along with anyone who tries to enforce them) are going to be ignored.
Unfortunately positions like the parliamentarian are not part of the law of the land and are a procedure put into place by the Senate. That means the senate can remove them at any time.
It's a bad system and was built to work on "good faith".
Just like the constitution!
Fuck.
You're wrong there. A senate parliamentary can be removed by the majority leader.
To amend the constitution take a 2/3rds majority vote, 2/3rds of states ratifying an amendment, or a constitutional convention being called and amendments voted on.
Of course these are just the legal means. Ignoring it and doing what you want seems to be working just fine for them
But once they do, notions like the filibuster also fall apart. Republicans have been pretty in favor of using the filibuster whenever Democrats are in power. So they would be torching a really handy tool they like to keep around.
From the way they are acting, they clearly don’t seriously think there will ever be a chance of them losing power, so they probably will go for it.
Of course, they’re probably also fully aware that if the Democrats ever DO regain power, they will trip all over themselves to “let bygones be bygones” and restore the filibuster for the Republicans to use.
That's based onthe assumption that they're going to fall out of power. They're only going kicking and screaming. Hopefully on the way to theor executions for treason.
Better than execution, let's strip their citzenship and deport them as they're doing to our brothers and sisters now.
"Not.A.King.Tho'"
--maga
Bouta find out if the parliamentarian is real, or just something Democrats pretend is real.
According to the article it says it requires only 51 votes to override. So "real" or not if the Republicans actually fall in line like always it once again doesn't matter what the Democrats in the Senate do. There are more than 51 (53) Republican senators, also Vance would vote for it. So they can have 3 people not vote for it and it would override it apparently. I thought the parliamentary would require 3/5 to override, but maybe that only pertained to some of the clauses they took out to ensure it did not require 60+ votes
I'm not saying the Democrats could do anything now, but that they could have done this same thing when Biden was president.
Democrats certainly acted like they needed a 3/5 override, it's no wonder you thought so.
I'm so fucking sick of people complaining about what the Democrats should have done years ago when the Republicans have been actively disassembling this country for my entire adult life, and are really getting down to the "rip out the wiring and sell it for scrap copper" phase.
Because if the Democrats had done those things, these people would be swinging at the end of ropes right now instead of ripping said copper.
The Republicans have been telling us basically my entire life (and I'm at the "joints no longer work" phase of old) They Were Gonna and the Democrats (who, due to the perverse structure of our government, were the people in the best position to head it off) have Charlie Browned the football that entire time. Are we supposed to just ignore that now that they've squandered whatever leverage they might once have had?
I get that the "true" villains are the Republicans, but the number of people left in this country who don't already know that AND will listen when told is vanishingly small.
So your plan is to give up, or try to change the Democrat party to move further left? A new party couldn't place a member on the Presidential ballot by 2028. They have to hold positions in multiple states of lower positions to do so, and that would split the possible centrists from the leftists and guarantee another Republican win.
Hating on individual Democrat members who drive the party Congress/Senate to the right makes sense. Hating on the entire party just helps lose support for their party and thereby support the "true" villains as you labeled them.
So your plan is to give up, or try to change the Democrat party to move further left? A new party couldn't place a member on the Presidential ballot by 2028. They have to hold positions in multiple states of lower positions to do so, and that would split the possible centrists from the leftists and guarantee another Republican win.
All excellent points against things I didn't say.
Hating on individual Democrat members who drive the party Congress/Senate to the right makes sense.
There are "individual" members driving the party right in much the same way there are "isolated bad apples" causing the police to abuse their powers. I can count on fingers the number of prominent Congressional Democrats pushing left. Even the party leadership is pushing "right, but slower" instead of left at all.
Hating on the entire party just helps lose support for their party and thereby support the "true" villains as you labeled them.
If someone sees a post online saying "Democrats should do more to fight against Evil Republicans when they eat orphans for fuel" and their takeaway is "But I don't know which Democrat specifically should have done more! Guess I'm voting for the orphan-eaters. 🤷"... then I would argue the post was not the problem.
What do you have against eating orphans? It statistically should drive down homelessness and potentially rent prices. Probably not good for the economy or moral though. Your parents died in a traffic accident, sorry kid... You're off to the buffet.
Found Johnathan Swift's username 😉
Republicans are going to kill me, but Democrats let them.
Could have done what when Biden was president? A bill like this was impossible to pass under Biden even if you could get the Democrats who notoriously don't line up together to get on the same page. It has to pass both sides of the legislature, and they didn't have a majority in both sides like Republicans do now.
It could have been a real thing in the past
You know the answer.
Trump: "Haven't you idiots learned from my example by now!? We can do WHATEVER we want! Just do it. No one will stop us! A judge intervenes, we just get another to let us do it!"
I think it requires 60 votes to overrule the parliamentarian. They just want to make a show of it.
Didn't take them 60 votes to ignore the parliamentarian and revoke the waivers that let California set its own emissions standards.
The Senate has overruled the guidance of the parliamentarian, a nonpartisan staffer who interprets the Senate's rules, and voted 51 to 44 to overturn a waiver allowing California to set its own air pollution standards for cars that are stricter than national regulations. The Senate has only overruled its parliamentarian a handful of times in the 90-year history of the role.
you know the thing
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News