Creating a new thread because the Senate is extremely close, and we're watching the first power plays for the next 2 years.
------------------------------------
Senate Democrats are signaling they will reject an effort by Mitch McConnell to protect the legislative filibuster as part of a deal to run a 50-50 Senate, saying they have little interest in bowing to his demands just hours into their new Senate majority.
McConnell has publicly and privately pressed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to work to keep the 60-vote threshold on most legislation as part of their power-sharing agreement. Democrats have no plans to gut the filibuster further, but argue it would be a mistake to take one of their tools off the table just as they're about to govern.
Post by DotAndBuzz on Jan 21, 2021 15:22:13 GMT -5
Can someone explain to me why he thinks dems need to acquiesce to his demands? Because I remember a LOT of years where he basically told us to fuck off, so......likewise Turtle.
Can someone explain to me why he thinks dems need to acquiesce to his demands? Because I remember a LOT of years where he basically told us to fuck off, so......likewise Turtle.
Apparently there is some historical precedent of shared power in the case of a 50/50 split.
Here is a piece describing what happened the last time (20 years ago) and saying it will be harder to figure out today:
ETA to be clear I agree that McConnell lost any good will toward shared governance over the past 5 years, just saying why he might argue precedent, even hypocritically.
Can someone explain to me why he thinks dems need to acquiesce to his demands? Because I remember a LOT of years where he basically told us to fuck off, so......likewise Turtle.
Apparently there is some historical precedent of shared power in the case of a 50/50 split.
Here is a piece describing what happened the last time (20 years ago) and saying it will be harder to figure out today:
ETA to be clear I agree that McConnell lost any good will toward shared governance over the past 5 years, just saying why he might argue precedent, even hypocritically.
Historical precedent...I hope dems let go of this first.
Can someone explain to me why he thinks dems need to acquiesce to his demands? Because I remember a LOT of years where he basically told us to fuck off, so......likewise Turtle.
Apparently there is some historical precedent of shared power in the case of a 50/50 split.
Here is a piece describing what happened the last time (20 years ago) and saying it will be harder to figure out today:
ETA to be clear I agree that McConnell lost any good will toward shared governance over the past 5 years, just saying why he might argue precedent, even hypocritically.
Oh... so NOW Republicans care about precedent? Where were they the past 4 years while 45 was destroying all precedents???
Can someone explain to me why he thinks dems need to acquiesce to his demands? Because I remember a LOT of years where he basically told us to fuck off, so......likewise Turtle.
Apparently there is some historical precedent of shared power in the case of a 50/50 split.
Here is a piece describing what happened the last time (20 years ago) and saying it will be harder to figure out today:
ETA to be clear I agree that McConnell lost any good will toward shared governance over the past 5 years, just saying why he might argue precedent, even hypocritically.
SO HELP ME IF SCHUMER PLAYS NICE I WILL LOSE MY SHIT. The GOP has blown up everydamnthing forever just to keep and gain power while Dems tried to be decent. And it got us SCREWED.
ETA to be clear I agree that McConnell lost any good will toward shared governance over the past 5 years, just saying why he might argue precedent, even hypocritically.
SO HELP ME IF SCHUMER PLAYS NICE I WILL LOSE MY SHIT. The GOP has blown up everydamnthing forever just to keep and gain power while Dems tried to be decent. And it got us SCREWED.
Time to fight like hell and get things DONE.
This. Georgia delivered a damn miracle. We better get every damn thing promised to us.
Post by lilypad1126 on Jan 21, 2021 16:18:37 GMT -5
Fuck every one of those republicans who think the Dems should just roll over on this. I'm so angry over the last 4 years (though much happier and more hopeful today), but damn it, I am going to lose my shit if Schumer and the dems give in to McConnell.
Watching the WH Press Briefing and a (I think) conservative reporter asks about why no GOP representatives among Biden’s leadership. Lol. Yes, because the GOP has been SOoooo good in the past about cooperating and engaging in a bipartisan way. How much did they share power? Lol. Have a seat and go ahead and wait.
Just a reminder...McConnell’s nonsense didn’t just start 4 years ago. I’m reading Promised Land and Obama is talking about how McConnell was an obstructionist from day 1 of Obama’s term. (It could have been before that...I don’t know.) He has such control over the Republican Party and how they all vote. It’ll be interesting to see how that holds up over the next year or so.
But NOW he wants everyone to play nice? Eh. Pass.
Unity doesn’t mean that we have to do everything to make the other side happy.
Just a reminder...McConnell’s nonsense didn’t just start 4 years ago. I’m reading Promised Land and Obama is talking about how McConnell was an obstructionist from day 1 of Obama’s term. (It could have been before that...I don’t know.) He has such control over the Republican Party and how they all vote. It’ll be interesting to see how that holds up over the next year or so.
But NOW he wants everyone to play nice? Eh. Pass.
Unity doesn’t mean that we have to do everything to make the other side happy.
McConnell deliberately goaded Democrats into abolishing the filibuster on judicial appointments knowing it would soon allow the GOP to fill SCOTUS seats however they wanted, and now we’re stuck with Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. I don’t want Schumer to play nice but I am leery of the future consequences of abolishing.
ETA: I hope Schumer doesn’t agree to keeping the filibuster in the organizing resolution, though. Don’t give McConnell that win.
Just a reminder...McConnell’s nonsense didn’t just start 4 years ago. I’m reading Promised Land and Obama is talking about how McConnell was an obstructionist from day 1 of Obama’s term. (It could have been before that...I don’t know.) He has such control over the Republican Party and how they all vote. It’ll be interesting to see how that holds up over the next year or so.
But NOW he wants everyone to play nice? Eh. Pass.
Unity doesn’t mean that we have to do everything to make the other side happy.
McConnell deliberately goaded Democrats into abolishing the filibuster on judicial appointments knowing it would soon allow the GOP to fill SCOTUS seats however they wanted, and now we’re stuck with Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. I don’t want Schumer to play nice but I am leery of the future consequences of abolishing.
ETA: I hope Schumer doesn’t agree to keeping the filibuster in the organizing resolution, though. Don’t give McConnell that win.
100% agree. I’m not opposed to getting rid of it but I don't want to hear people whining and blaming Democrats when we don’t have it anymore once Republicans take power again. You can’t have it both ways. Memories are short when it comes to this stuff. Do I think the ends justify the means in this case? Sure. But it goes both ways forever and ever amen.
McConnell deliberately goaded Democrats into abolishing the filibuster on judicial appointments knowing it would soon allow the GOP to fill SCOTUS seats however they wanted, and now we’re stuck with Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. I don’t want Schumer to play nice but I am leery of the future consequences of abolishing.
ETA: I hope Schumer doesn’t agree to keeping the filibuster in the organizing resolution, though. Don’t give McConnell that win.
100% agree. I’m not opposed to getting rid of it but I don't want to hear people whining and blaming Democrats when we don’t have it anymore once Republicans take power again. You can’t have it both ways. Memories are short when it comes to this stuff. Do I think the ends justify the means in this case? Sure. But it goes both ways forever and ever amen.
I worry dems spend too much time thinking about the future what ifs and it will prevent getting some of the bigger things done.
100% agree. I’m not opposed to getting rid of it but I don't want to hear people whining and blaming Democrats when we don’t have it anymore once Republicans take power again. You can’t have it both ways. Memories are short when it comes to this stuff. Do I think the ends justify the means in this case? Sure. But it goes both ways forever and ever amen.
I worry dems spend too much time thinking about the future what ifs and it will prevent getting some of the bigger things done.
Maybe. But if I had a dollar for every time people cursed Harry Reid the past 4 years re: no filibuster for judicial appointments I’d be able to start my own PAC. It’s all fun and games until the other party is playing with your new rules.
I worry dems spend too much time thinking about the future what ifs and it will prevent getting some of the bigger things done.
Maybe. But if I had a dollar for every time people cursed Harry Reid the past 4 years re: no filibuster for judicial appointments I’d be able to start my own PAC. It’s all fun and games until the other party is playing with your new rules.
Can someone explain to me why he thinks dems need to acquiesce to his demands? Because I remember a LOT of years where he basically told us to fuck off, so......likewise Turtle.
Apparently there is some historical precedent of shared power in the case of a 50/50 split.
Here is a piece describing what happened the last time (20 years ago) and saying it will be harder to figure out today:
ETA to be clear I agree that McConnell lost any good will toward shared governance over the past 5 years, just saying why he might argue precedent, even hypocritically.
Ten years. And more.
October 2010: "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
(I'd actually argue 20 years since he became a major obstructionist partisan. During the Clinton impeachment)
No. Once there’s precedent for removing it it’s gone and fair game for whichever party is in power.
Interesting. So they can subtract rules, but can’t add them?
Well who ever has the power can make the rules. But there’s sort of an unofficial line in the sand that some rules won’t be touched by either party, regardless of who holds power. Once one party touches that particular rule, the other party has free reign to take advantage of that change. There is really no scenario where having the filibuster is *helpful* to the party in power so it can be assumed that whomever holds power will continue not to have that rule (as has been done with appointments.)
Interesting. So they can subtract rules, but can’t add them?
Well who ever has the power can make the rules. But there’s sort of an unofficial line in the sand that some rules won’t be touched by either party, regardless of who holds power. Once one party touches that particular rule, the other party has free reign to take advantage of that change. There is really no scenario where having the filibuster is *helpful* to the party in power so it can be assumed that whomever holds power will continue not to have that rule (as has been done with appointments.)
Right, but even if it’s not helpful, I was thinking the Dems could reinstate it if they anticipate the Rs being in power next. But maybe it gets too back and forth and becomes too much of a game at that point.
Well who ever has the power can make the rules. But there’s sort of an unofficial line in the sand that some rules won’t be touched by either party, regardless of who holds power. Once one party touches that particular rule, the other party has free reign to take advantage of that change. There is really no scenario where having the filibuster is *helpful* to the party in power so it can be assumed that whomever holds power will continue not to have that rule (as has been done with appointments.)
Right, but even if it’s not helpful, I was thinking the Dems could reinstate it if they anticipate the Rs being in power next. But maybe it gets too back and forth and becomes too much of a game at that point.
But as soon as the Republicans were in power they would just be able to change it back so I’m not sure how the Dems doing that would be helpful in a practical sense.