Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Fulchrum posted:

Okay, back up. What allows this?
A Republican majority.

bird food bathtub
Aug 9, 2003

College Slice

Fulchrum posted:

Okay, back up. What allows this?

"Because gently caress you that's why"

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich
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?

Rent-A-Cop
Oct 15, 2004

I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

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?
The rules Congress sets for itself are in no way meant to restrain Congress.

bird food bathtub
Aug 9, 2003

College Slice

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.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich
Okay, then why does that allow them to dictate what the CBO does?

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

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. :shrug: They don't have to pass a law to do that, apparently.

1stGear
Jan 16, 2010

Here's to the new us.
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.

Rent-A-Cop
Oct 15, 2004

I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

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.
These assholes used to fist fight in the chamber and shoot each other on the lawn. Andrew Jackson declared "gently caress the Supreme Court. I do what I want" in 1838. None of this is new.

There's probably more decorum now.

Shimrra Jamaane
Aug 10, 2007

Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

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

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

Quorum posted:

Because the CBO is an appendage of Congress, and Congress is its boss, so what they say goes. :shrug: 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:

Bueno Papi
May 10, 2009

Fulchrum posted:

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:

With regards to an ACA repeal vote?

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich
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

Bueno Papi
May 10, 2009

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.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

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.

Bueno Papi
May 10, 2009

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.

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.

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.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich
I thought supreme Court nominations were open to filibuster and required 60 votes?

Rent-A-Cop
Oct 15, 2004

I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Fulchrum posted:

I thought supreme Court nominations were open to filibuster and required 60 votes?
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.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

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.

Rent-A-Cop
Oct 15, 2004

I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

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.
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.

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.

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

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.

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.

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.

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich
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

Rent-A-Cop
Oct 15, 2004

I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

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.
Democrats promised to stop drinking! Surely if I go back he'll treat me right. It's really all my fault for supporting Bernie anyway.

PhazonLink
Jul 17, 2010
To be fair I heard Obama brews a nice porter.

DeusExMachinima
Sep 2, 2012

:siren:This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!:siren:

Put this loser on ignore immediately!
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.

Defenestration
Aug 10, 2006

"It wasn't my fault that my first unconscious thought turned out to be-"
"Jesus, kid, what?"
"That something smelled delicious!"


Grimey Drawer
Why exactly can't Obama appoint Garland anyway? Saying they had their opportunity to advise and consent and they declined?

NewForumSoftware
Oct 8, 2016

by Lowtax

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.

Zikan
Feb 29, 2004

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

DeusExMachinima
Sep 2, 2012

:siren:This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!:siren:

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

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?

Fulchrum
Apr 16, 2013

by R. Guyovich

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.

FuturePastNow
May 19, 2014


The filibuster will very quickly go away if the Democrats filibuster anything

Triskelli
Sep 27, 2011

I AM A SKELETON
WITH VERY HIGH
STANDARDS


FuturePastNow posted:

The filibuster will very quickly go away if the Democrats filibuster anything

And good riddance, too.

Geostomp
Oct 22, 2008

Unite: MASH!!
~They've got the bad guys on the run!~

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.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

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.

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Main Paineframe posted:

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.

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.

galenanorth
May 19, 2016

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/818544880658108416

They could do the same thing with a lot of other documents.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

galenanorth posted:

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/818544880658108416

They could do the same thing with a lot of other documents.

Nice, good move.

Quorum
Sep 24, 2014

REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?
Considering we have entered the era of governance via hot takes and twitter burns, this is a good move and I thoroughly approve.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ever Disappointing
May 4, 2004

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.

  • Locked thread