|
Zikan posted:Because they are passing it through the reconciliation process that only needs 50 votes rather then the supermajority needed to overcome a filibusterer So this is basically their one and done essentially, right? Everything else horrific they want to try, Democrats can stop them? And don't give me the sad sack "Oh dems won't cause they are weak/secretly republicans/stupid", I'm asking if this is essentially the only blank check measure they get?
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
How long does the period you can put forward this bill last? Or is the window for it basically the entirety of the year?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Apparently Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment to force term limits on the Senate and House. Of course it would be Cruz. Mother fucker has burned every bridge he has, so at this point this is just him screaming "IF I'M GOING DOWN I'M TAKING ALL YOU FUCKERS WITH ME!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
We might actually see these freaks fighting between delaying and replacing for so long that we make it past 2018 and they can't do either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Unless Republicans get a supermajority in 2018, they'll never be able to completely repeal ACA. However, they can get really far by just defunding ACA. Which Republicans will most assuredly set out to do this year. If there's going to be any fight, it'll be over how long to delay the defunding. Rand Paul's skepticism is still justified though. Health insurance are freaking the gently caress out and what Rand Paul doesn't want to see happen is the federal government bailing out private health insurance for a few years until the post-ACA repeal stabilizes. Think of it like the 2007 financial panic but affecting 20% of the economy. There far-right Republicans who will not vote for a health insurance bailout. Requiring the democrats to pass anything to prop up the health insurance markets and to finally fully repeal/replace the ACA. Wait, so what exactly can and cannot get put in their simple majority bill?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Reconciliation can include only budget measures. So yes to defunding everything, no to anything that doesn't involve money. Okay, so voter id, libel laws, right to work conversion, that poo poo cannot get put in that bill.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Bueno Papi posted:Another shady bit is house republicans rule package included a provision barring the CBO from calculating the deficit increase upon an ACA repeal. Okay, back up. What allows this?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Okay, then why does that allow them to dictate what the CBO does?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Because the CBO is an appendage of Congress, and Congress is its boss, so what they say goes. 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
|
|
They don't have to pass a law to do that, apparently.
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I thought supreme Court nominations were open to filibuster and required 60 votes?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
When was the last time someone went directly from senate minority leader to presidential nominee? And before you say Dole or LBJ, I said directly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Pop-o-Matic Trouble posted:In addition to what has already been mentioned, he is very, very pro-Israel. Who in American politics isn't?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Like, Israel hardliners are baying for Keith Ellison's blood, but even he denounced those views and is pro-Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Does the nuclear option only apply to appointments, or could Republicans remove the filibuster on all issues?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:23 |
|
|
...what? If it's a simple majority decision to uphold or take away the means by the minority to block the majority, why does it even exist at all? What does a supermajority even matter?
Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 05:30
|
|