|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, back up. What allows this? The annual House rule package. It's the same thing that was going to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics until there was a huge outcry.
|
# ? Jan 7, 2017 21:55 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 20:41 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, back up. What allows this?
|
# ? Jan 7, 2017 23:51 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, back up. What allows this? "Because gently caress you that's why"
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 00:05 |
|
Okay, but, seriously, why? They're essentially allowed a single vote where they are allowed to gently caress with the rules that are supposed to restrain them?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 02:20 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, but, seriously, why? They're essentially allowed a single vote where they are allowed to gently caress with the rules that are supposed to restrain them?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 02:31 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, but, seriously, why? They're essentially allowed a single vote where they are allowed to gently caress with the rules that are supposed to restrain them? It's supposed to be a budgetary vote, but if you wipe out the budget of an agency or organization you don't like well then that's just a totally different thing from passing legislation so there's no need to do any of that messy procedural stuff involved in passing legislation. It's like many, many other things lately; political norms and fundamental assumptions of how people are supposed to act as a part of governing the nation are just getting thrown the gently caress out the window all over the place because "gently caress you, that's why". Republican political extremism has divided things so sharply that the fundamental institutions of government are starting to break down. Look at North Carolina as an example. "Oh we lost the vote for an office? Well gently caress your vote we'll take the power of that office away and give it back to ourselves" One party is willing to burn the whole loving nation to the ground (such as playing chicken with the United States government defaulting on it's debts) to get what they want (looting the ashes of the burning nation). "We shouldn't do this, it's really bad and corrosive to the functioning of the nation" doesn't matter to people who see the nation as a piggy bank to shatter today to scoop out everything they can grab before bailing out on their personal golden parachute tomorrow when everything goes to complete poo poo.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 02:52 |
|
Okay, then why does that allow them to dictate what the CBO does?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 02:58 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, then why does that allow them to dictate what the CBO does? Because the CBO is an appendage of Congress, and Congress is its boss, so what they say goes. They don't have to pass a law to do that, apparently.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 04:40 |
|
There was an assumption by the Founding Fathers and various statesmen throughout the years that members of state and local governments would maintain some degree of decorum and desire to govern in good faith. That system has utterly broken down. The government is now run by people who don't care about decorum, aren't governing in good faith, and are actively destroying parts of government that aren't personally enriching them.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 04:45 |
|
1stGear posted:There was an assumption by the Founding Fathers and various statesmen throughout the years that members of state and local governments would maintain some degree of decorum and desire to govern in good faith. That system has utterly broken down. The government is now run by people who don't care about decorum, aren't governing in good faith, and are actively destroying parts of government that aren't personally enriching them. There's probably more decorum now.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 05:03 |
|
1stGear posted:There was an assumption by the Founding Fathers and various statesmen throughout the years that members of state and local governments would maintain some degree of decorum and desire to govern in good faith. That system has utterly broken down. The government is now run by people who don't care about decorum, aren't governing in good faith, and are actively destroying parts of government that aren't personally enriching them. Yeah this is a pretty rose tinted view of early American politics, especially during Antebellum
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 05:18 |
|
Quorum posted:Because the CBO is an appendage of Congress, and Congress is its boss, so what they say goes. They don't have to pass a law to do that, apparently. So thats a function that can be done with just a simple majority and not with the necessary 60 votes? Okay, lets make this simple - the full amount of functions that congress can theoretically accomplish if we assume that Republicans and Democrats vote along party lines is:
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 05:27 |
|
Fulchrum posted:So thats a function that can be done with just a simple majority and not with the necessary 60 votes? With regards to an ACA repeal vote?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 05:30 |
|
With regards to anything horrific. Muslim registry, union busting, rolling back lgbt rights, voter suppression, Alec created legislation.
Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Jan 8, 2017 |
# ? Jan 8, 2017 06:04 |
|
Fulchrum posted:With regards to anything horrific. Muslim registry, union busting, rolling back lgbt rights, voter suppression, Alec created legislation. Hard to gauge really. Most of that can be regulatory in nature. The executive can instruct the DOJ to not pursue LGBT/voter suppression inquiries. The NLRB is already pretty neutered but with a republican administration you can forget about anything substantive occurring. The muslim registry can come back. Obama removed the regulatory framework of NSEERS (Bush era muslim registry) but Trump can put it back, maybe. ALEC stuff maybe. This term probably not but midterms can go badly for democrats. If Republicans get 60 in the senate from the midterms, all bets are off. Gonna be two very rough years for republicans. All that isn't too bad. It can be undone with a democrat swing a la 2008. But losing the opportunity to to appoint a liberal justice to replace Scalia will have ramifications for decades. If RBG dies, that's game over.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 06:34 |
|
Bueno Papi posted:Hard to gauge really. Most of that can be regulatory in nature. The executive can instruct the DOJ to not pursue LGBT/voter suppression inquiries. The NLRB is already pretty neutered but with a republican administration you can forget about anything substantive occurring. The muslim registry can come back. Obama removed the regulatory framework of NSEERS (Bush era muslim registry) but Trump can put it back, maybe. ALEC stuff maybe. This term probably not but midterms can go badly for democrats. If Republicans get 60 in the senate from the midterms, all bets are off. Gonna be two very rough years for republicans. All that isn't too bad. It can be undone with a democrat swing a la 2008. But losing the opportunity to to appoint a liberal justice to replace Scalia will have ramifications for decades. If RBG dies, that's game over. The latter requires that they not just take the exact same "gently caress yo appointment, bitch" tactics that McConnell did, and that SC appointments don't just become something that only happens with a supermajority. Rgb lives and everything either goes dems way, or is a tie. She dies, we're back to where we were for nearly all of Obama's terms, with a split and Kennedy as the deciding factor.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 06:51 |
|
Fulchrum posted:The latter requires that they not just take the exact same "gently caress yo appointment, bitch" tactics that McConnell did, and that SC appointments don't just become something that only happens with a supermajority. Ugh, no. Republicans will appoint a Scalia type to fill the vacancy. That's the status quo. If RGB dies, that's a 6-3 conservative majority. Four of whom would be of the crazy rear end federalist society strain.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 07:06 |
|
I thought supreme Court nominations were open to filibuster and required 60 votes?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 07:39 |
|
Fulchrum posted:I thought supreme Court nominations were open to filibuster and required 60 votes?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 07:45 |
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Democratic Party doesn't have the kind of insane streak required to filibuster a Supreme Court nomination for four years. Trump will find someone that falls in line with enough Dem donors to turn the required senators. We're talking the hypothetical here. Like, there is no disadvantage to telling Trump to gently caress off for four years for dems as a whole, since right now, no nominee could be better than not filling that role.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 08:09 |
|
Fulchrum posted:We're talking the hypothetical here. Like, there is no disadvantage to telling Trump to gently caress off for four years for dems as a whole, since right now, no nominee could be better than not filling that role. If you don't think the Dems will march women, minorities, and LGBT folks straight into the camps for sweet, sweet donor cash you haven't been paying attention.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 08:18 |
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The advantage will come when Trump nominates someone who read the Constitution super hard and came to the conclusion that banks shouldn't have to pay taxes. Then we can watch the DNC be like "The time for bipartisanship is now!" and sell us all down the river. Your cynicism is noted, and also, super tired by this point. None of the people Trump has on his nomination short list in any way comport with what "Democratic donors" want on the bench; if they did, they'd have donated to one of the billion Republicans who promised to appoint clones of Scalia grown by the Heritage foundation, because that's what Trump has promised us since well before the election.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 08:26 |
|
Dems know that any Trump appointee WILL say that restricting voting to landowners whites is super constitutional. It's a choice between no regulation banks and also being a Dem is a felony, vs agreeable to banks and also the electoral college and gerrymandering is unconstitutional and their job gets way easier.
Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Jan 8, 2017 |
# ? Jan 8, 2017 08:33 |
|
Quorum posted:Your cynicism is noted, and also, super tired by this point. None of the people Trump has on his nomination short list in any way comport with what "Democratic donors" want on the bench; if they did, they'd have donated to one of the billion Republicans who promised to appoint clones of Scalia grown by the Heritage foundation, because that's what Trump has promised us since well before the election.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 08:50 |
|
To be fair I heard Obama brews a nice porter.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 08:57 |
|
It doesn't matter if you try to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee because the majority party will just take the nuclear option. If Dems had a majority during last year they would've done the same to replace Scalia with Garland if they had to.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 16:13 |
|
Why exactly can't Obama appoint Garland anyway? Saying they had their opportunity to advise and consent and they declined?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 16:28 |
|
Defenestration posted:Why exactly can't Obama appoint Garland anyway? Saying they had their opportunity to advise and consent and they declined? He's saving some political capital so he can get a new boat after he leaves office.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 16:29 |
|
Defenestration posted:Why exactly can't Obama appoint Garland anyway? Saying they had their opportunity to advise and consent and they declined? because a supreme court justice requires senate confirmation, which they have been stonewalling on, and a recess appointment requires congress to actually go into recess, which the republicans in congress have been using increasingly complex methods of basically saying, "were not in recess lol" when they are. Zikan fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jan 8, 2017 |
# ? Jan 8, 2017 16:56 |
|
Defenestration posted:Why exactly can't Obama appoint Garland anyway? Saying they had their opportunity to advise and consent and they declined? Because they did not consent?
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 17:50 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:It doesn't matter if you try to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee because the majority party will just take the nuclear option. If Dems had a majority during last year they would've done the same to replace Scalia with Garland if they had to. That depends on how likely they think that they are to gain a legit supermajority off of 2018.
|
# ? Jan 8, 2017 19:45 |
|
The filibuster will very quickly go away if the Democrats filibuster anything
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 01:29 |
FuturePastNow posted:The filibuster will very quickly go away if the Democrats filibuster anything And good riddance, too.
|
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 02:07 |
|
1stGear posted:There was an assumption by the Founding Fathers and various statesmen throughout the years that members of state and local governments would maintain some degree of decorum and desire to govern in good faith. That system has utterly broken down. The government is now run by people who don't care about decorum, aren't governing in good faith, and are actively destroying parts of government that aren't personally enriching them. In other words, we are turbo hosed and the nation as a whole may not survive. FuturePastNow posted:The filibuster will very quickly go away if the Democrats filibuster anything Which means it is effectively already gone.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 02:09 |
|
FuturePastNow posted:The filibuster will very quickly go away if the Democrats filibuster anything Just like it did in 2009, right? I wouldn't count the filibuster out just yet. It still serves one very important purpose: being an excuse for Republicans to not live up to promises they never intended to keep.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 15:27 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Just like it did in 2009, right? The Democrats of 2009 had substantially greater respect for decorum and the institutions of the legislature than the Republicans of 2017. I don't necessarily disagree that the filibuster is staying for now, but only because it's useful as an excuse and the GOP thinks it has a good chance of getting a supermajority in 2018.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 16:40 |
|
https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/818544880658108416 They could do the same thing with a lot of other documents.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:27 |
galenanorth posted:https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/818544880658108416 Nice, good move.
|
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:44 |
|
Considering we have entered the era of governance via hot takes and twitter burns, this is a good move and I thoroughly approve.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:47 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 20:41 |
|
What are the pros/cons of Chuck Schumer as the representative of Senate Democrats? I don't know much about him but saw a lot of negativity over the last few months. I did like his interview on Maddow last week though and I appreciate moves like this.
|
# ? Jan 9, 2017 21:52 |