Mr. Pierce On Senate Rules....

[The Magistrate]

Right now, the Democratic majority is tied up in knots because too many of its members have entangled themselves comfortably in customs and traditions so that a serious response to serious national crises are beyond the reach of the upper chamber of the Congress. On Sunday, the Senate’s parliamentarian, an official of no real constitutional authority, declared that immigration reform could not be included in the reconciliation package. From Politico:

'The parliamentarian underscored the power of the chamber's rules to clip Democratic ambitions on Sunday night, ruling against the majority party's bid to include immigration reform in its social spending bill. That isn't the only call Democrats are anxious about getting: They'll likely also need parliamentarian approval to include provisions on labor, clean energy and drug pricing in their party-line bill. The Senate Budget Committee declined to comment about their strategy for winning those go-aheads. What the parliamentarian lets stay or forces out of the multitrillion-dollar measure could have enormous consequences for its ultimate success and Biden’s legacy. And the referee has stymied Democrats’ plans before, most notably when she ruled out a minimum wage hike for a coronavirus aid bill they passed earlier this year using reconciliation.'

And the Democratic majority is going to go along with this, just as it is going to go along with preserving the filibuster, because a handful of cowardly senators are letting Senator Joe Manchin front for them. In fact, the parliamentarian’s ruling is purely advisory, just as the filibuster is purely a matter of custom, not of law, and certainly not of the Constitution.

These are ghosts in the machine, spectral roadblocks given substance only through the fact that some people believe in them. A Senate majority could do away with the filibuster with 51 votes. The vice president could dismiss the parliamentarian’s position out of hand. Certainly, Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence, respectively, would have hand-waved their way past both barriers. But Democrats don’t do that. Neither do they seem to care enough about voting rights even to carve out an exception to the filibuster to pass a bill that Joe Manchin designed. This isn’t just Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. There are other Democratic senators in the weeds here. Complicity is the most enervating form of corruption there is.



https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a37669282/joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-reconciliation-filibuster/

[Hekate]

1. I just want to bang my head against the wall

Why, why, why

[SheltieLover]

2. K&R!

[babylonsister]

3. Grrr. nt

[msongs]

4. it's not the repubs who are the biggest problem in the senate nt

[AleksS]

7. Really? Because when I checked

Each and every one was worse than any and every single Democrat.

Each and every Republican is worse than the worst Democrat.

So no matter how much of a “problem” any given Democrat is, ANY and EVERY Republican is MORE of a problem.

With all the attention some “problem” Democrats get, I sometimes forget that every single Republican is MORE of a problem, they’re just getting less attention.

Is any Republican voting to protect voting rights? Voting to end the filibuster? Etc.? Nope. They’re also not voting to approve Biden’s judges or voting yes on even the smallest of social benefits or keeping Schumer as majority leader and in and on.

Each and every Republican is worse than even the worst Democrat right now. Each and every single Republican is the problem. I have to remind myself not to let them slide just because certain Democrats are getting media attention and are so easy to hate.

[betsuni]

10. Thanks. 100% obstructionist radicalized post-policy politics-as-war Republicans are the problem.

With a normal opposition party bipartisanship is possible and there wouldn't be such a serious problem. Dysfunction in government is caused by Republicans.

[Orrex]

11. Yes of course, but that's hardly a great campaign slogan for the midterms

"Hey, we know that you gave us the Congressional majority with the expectation that we'd do things and hold people accountable, and if you vote for us again we'll totally do all that stuff. Honest! Remember, Republicans are worse!"

[betsuni]

13. 50-50 isn't a majority.

[Orrex]

15. Yeah, go with that

"Sure, we had the Vice President to break ties, but if you give us nine or ten more Senate seats, we'll totally get it done. Eleven, tops."

[betsuni]

18. "I'm not Trump, vote for me!" was an anti-Democratic insult in the last two elections.

The myth that Democrats stand for nothing, have no message, the same economic policies as Republicans,, they "allow" and "don't stop" Republicans, are complicit, corrupt. Recycled for the next one as "Republicans are worse, vote for us!"

[Orrex]

19. I don't know that they have no message

But they sure as hell aren't very good at articulating it.

Repugs can spit out a four-syllable slogan that immediately catches fire with the constituents, while Democrats issue a four paragraph statement with footnotes and cross-references that maybe sort of touches on the issue.

Yes, every poll show that a strong majority of people support policies that are, frankly, Democratic. However, Repugs have absolutely mastered the art of steering the discussion, and until Democrats can counter that, it won't matter if every person on the planet wants their policies.

[betsuni]

34. Republican voters know the Democratic message: Equality.

That's why they hate Democrats. Why anybody else doesn't know this obvious fact is beyond stupid.

[Orrex]

35. Great! Post a link to top level Democrats articulating that message plainly.

That is, let’s see clips of Democratic power players asserting equality as the party’s message in under ten syllables.

Not as a message to be inferred from context, and not in offhand comments buried in long, meandering statements, by the way, but clips showing Democrats embracing and promoting this message first and foremost. And not in general language like “it is the considered Democratic opinion that the law must be equally applied to all citizens.” Let’s see a plain and simple articulation of this basic distinguishing principle.

I’m a little out of the media loop lately, so for all I know they might repeat this simple and effective point 24/7.

He’ll, maybe I’m just as stupid as you assert.

[Mad_Machine76]

45. Republicans still show up to vote no matter what

Why can't we? We wouldn't be in this hole in the first place if people didn't pop their heads up every once in a while and vote for President and Congress and then disappear again until Republicans take back over and start making things worse. And each time they get power, it just gets worse and worse.

[Orrex]

46. That is the sad damn truth

Repubs see every election as a chance to “Own the Libs,” and they vote accordingly. Too many Dems seem to see elections as an inconvenience or an unpleasant chore.

[Mad_Machine76]

47. Or they bail

at the first sign that things aren't getting done. Instead of coming back to elect more Democrats or better Democrats, they get mad, stay home, and then get all mad when we lose the majority and once again can't do ANYTHING.

[maxsolomon]

9. The Senate Traditionalist Dems are the 2nd biggest problem in the Senate.

Repubs are obstructionist assholes, even the vaunted Centrists who voted for President Asshole's 2nd Impeachment.

McConnell's position is to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. He didn't refuse when he was in charge.

These Dems are holding on to how it's supposed to work, but it doesn't anymore. McConnell broke it when Obama won.

[Orrex]

17. You've stated it very nicely

Democrats are working to conduct business (including, ultimately, to hold Repubs accountable) within the formal framework of the existing system, while Repubs are shitting all over the system while they work to destroy it.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. I had kind of hoped that four years of Trump would have finally cured them of that.

I guess I was overly optimistic.

After the next two elections, I'm not expecting that they'll ever get the chance again.

[msongs]

14. dems do NOT need any repub votes, they have enuff except for obstructionists nt

[AleksS]

23. Just don't forget that

Republicans also AREN’T voting for good things. If certain democrats are a “problem” then EVERY Republican—every single one—is an even bigger “problem,” because they’re voting the same way plus worse!

It’s not like any republicans are voting for filibuster reform—so if NOT voting for filibuster reform makes a senator into a “problem,” then all republicans are problems. If NOT voting for election protections makes certain Democrats “problems,” then it makes EVERY Republican just as much a problem—and more because of the things they also don’t vote for (judges, etc.)

The problem very much is republicans; each and every one. Each and every one is worse than the worst Democrat, so if any Democrat is a “problem,” then EVERY Republican is a worse problem.

[KPN]

25. We have 51 votes in theory. We ARE the majority and the Rs would damn sure would run

run full steam ahead with that same damn majority.

[AleksS]

37. Sure. But when people say things like

How the “real problem” is certain Democrats, when EVERY Republican is in every way more of a problem, that’s pretty self evidently ridiculous and false.

[KPN]

40. What?! Reviewing the thread, I saw no comment saying the

“real problem” is certain Democrats. No one has denied the Repukes are our greatest threat to democracy or the progressive agenda. It’s not a situation of either/or. Discounting the fact that elected Democrats are standing in the way of legislative accomplishments that a large majority of voters favor and will remember on Election Day 2022 and 2024 is not a winning strategy. Voters want results, not explanations (blaming) for lack of results.

[AleksS]

42. And yet here folks are blaming certain Democrats

You say blaming isn’t the answer, ironically, in a post blaming certain democrats for “standing in the way of legislative accomplishments.”

I’d argue that if blaming republicans isn’t the answer, then blaming democrats also isn’t the answer.

Everything that is being stopped by S and M is also being stopped by R’s. And they’re also stopping many other things. So by any possible metric, they are more to blame, are a bigger problem, etc.

And, here’s the post that started this all:

“4. it's not the repubs who are the biggest problem in the senate nt”

To which I vehemently disagree. For the reasons stated.

[The Magistrate]

26. All That Is True, Sir

In terms of Senate organization, Manchin and Sinema are essential. They prevent McConnell from holding the chieftainship of the body. On most routine matters, they vote properly.

At this point, however, they are preventing exercise of our slim majority for policies which are both widely popular and of great value to the people of our country.

That, I expect you will agree is a problem.

It is a problem which may well produce a Republican majority in one or both chambers.

[AleksS]

38. Do you know who else is preventing exercise of

Our slim majority?

Every single Republican. Every one. 50 of them are each and all bigger “problems” than either of sinema or Manchin.

Each Republican is a bigger problem than any Democrat.

As a thought experiment, if S and M were by affiliation, republicans, would people still consider them “problems?” Would we be having this conversation? And then consider, would we be getting more or less accomplished?

[The Magistrate]

39. One Expects Opposition From An Enemy, Sir

That is priced into the market, as it were.

One always keenly resents shirkers, people on one's own side who won't always stand up under fire.

And it remains the case that in this instance, it certainly is the 'centerist' faction which is jeopardizing the Party's popular programs, and if they prevail completely in the intramural contest put the Party's electoral prospects next year at risk.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. LOL!

It's not like we have any control whatsoever over what the Rs do. We don't vote for them or support them or their agenda in any way.

The Democratic Party is the party that we vote for, support, and donate to, and allegedly are supposed to have some sort of say over.

Whining about how terrible the Rs are gets us exactly nowhere. Trying to hold our own party to some sort of standard is the only way that we have to get anything at all. If they have the majority and don't do shit with it, then that is what people here are going to focus on.

[AleksS]

43. I would put forth that whining about

How terrible members of our own party are is even worse than whining about how terrible members of the other party are, and gets us even less return.

Republicans got where they are on a “always and only attack democrats” messaging. Attacking the enemy seems to work for them. We should try it.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. You think that they don't attack their own when they get out of line?

Liz Cheney would like a word with you.

Done with this "discussion".

[AleksS]

48. And how's that working for them?

They were strongest when they followed St Ronnie’s 11th Commandment:

“The Commandment reads: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
(Wiki)

As long as S and M are better than the best Republican, I maintain it’s better to fight republicans than to fight allies.

[Nevilledog]

5. This makes me so angry.

Nobody outside of politics gives a shit about filibusters, bipartisanship, or parliamentarians.

Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.

[The Magistrate]

36. At This Point, Ma'am, There Doesn't seem Much Else To Do....

[BeckyDem]

6. It's costing us on many levels.

[bottomofthehill]

8. Article 1 Section 3 The Senate

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

I dont know where people come up with the "The Vice President can just over rule the Parliamentarian" it sounds dangerously like the VP can pick and choose what slate of electors to count or disqualify.

We want to change the rules, we need to elect more Democrats. There is no issue with redistricting in the senate, we just need more members.

[Silent3]

16. The idea of there being a Senate Parliamentarian isn't in the Constitution either

So don't look to the Constitution to find out whether to VP can overrule her or not. The House and the Senate clearly have the right to set up their own procedural rules, and in making those rules, the Senate certainly could have granted the VP the authority to overrule the Parliamentarian, which is not a matter of having a Vote or not, not in the sense of voting to pass a piece of legislation.

[bottomofthehill]

20. Right, its in the senate rules, they need 51 votes to change the rules, they need to vote to change

There are not 51 votes to change the rules though and the VP can not by "'Devine right of kings choose' to over rule the senate rules. Crazy things can happen, but i have a hard time seeing the majority of senators ever granting the VP, any VP, the ability to over rune their Parliamentarian. The senate can vote to overrule her, but why would they ever give that power away to the Administration

[Silent3]

22. Depends

I don't have the text of the rules that set up the whole process of there being a Parliamentarian in the first place, or a reconciliation process, but if, by previous majority vote when establishing the rules, the Senate gave the VP the unilateral right to overrule the Parliamentarian, then she has it.

[The Magistrate]

29. The Parliamentarian, Sir, Advises The Presiding Officer

The presiding officer does not need to take that advice.

The procedure for objection to a measure as extraneous under the Byrd rule is to raise a point of order. The presiding officer rules on this motion, and may accept or reject it. To over-rule any ruling of the presiding officer requires sixty votes.

"A motion ... to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair on a point of
order raised under the Byrd rule, requires the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the membership
(60 Senators if no seats are vacant)."

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30862.pdf



There is also precedent for firing a Parliamentarian over such a disagreement, it was done in 2001 by Trent Lott, then majority leader. The quarrel was over whether certain measures could be in a reconciliation bill.

[KPN]

30. Good info.

[Kid Berwyn]

12. Like magic, Sir, Gridlock appears to block progressive legislation.

Gridlock is never around to stop tax breaks for the rich or the funding of wars without end, like magic.

[KPN]

31. Huzzah!

[wellst0nev0ter]

21. In other words, nobody should stand in our way

when we criticize bad actors like Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema.

[The Magistrate]

24. This Is My View On That, Sir

It is a surprisingly simple situation.

I will defend 'centerists' against almost any charge when we are out of power, because the first need is to gain a majority, since without one nothing can be done, and the enemy can do so much.

When we have a majority, I will not defend, and will even attack, 'centerists' who prevent us from using our majority to enact policies that are both popular and necessary.

And I will continue to point out that 'centerists' have no mystical understanding of, nor are they particularly attuned to, the desires of voters in swing districts or states. The 'centerist' rides with the wave. With rare exceptions, they come to office if Democrats are more popular than usual, and are tumbled out of it when Democrats become less popular. And what generally makes Democrats less popular is failing to enact policies that are good for the country and popular with Democratic Party voters. Declining to support such measures gains them nothing. The 'centerists' are always the chief electoral target of the enemy. They will be assailed in the same terms as the most radical young woman of color from New York city conceivable, no matter how they vote....

[mcar]

32. There are other Democrats in the weeds here

Manchin and Sinema drive me crazy too, but they are the front people for this misguided group.

[Calista241]

33. We can't even get 50 Dems to agree on simple stuff...

Like a $15 minimum wage, or infrastructure (which is the simplest, most popular type of new spending bill possible).

What makes anyone think they’d take up and pass hard stuff like an Abortion law, Judicial reform, police reform, immigration reform, voting rights, corruption or any of the myriad of other things that need to get done?

[SouthernDem4ever]

41. It's way past time to get rid of the filibuster

we need to vote in more Dem Senators with common sense brains, not repugs who are just greedy unto themselves.