How/Why to Change Senate Rules.

Because a Scissorhead asked in email… and I figured that if one person asked at least 10 others wanted to ask but felt shy:

I’d be lying to you if I told you I understood the arcane Senate Rules (how they come into being, how they are removed, even the damn why of their existence at all), and Senate Rules was never covered in my Civics classes;  my betters tell me that even changing the rules requires overcoming a filibuster (I think I got that right).

From an old post over at Electoral-Vote, our pals explain changing the (filibuster) rules thusly (change the names to the current office holders):`

At the start of the 112th Senate, some (Republican) senator will say that the 112th Senate is a continuation of the 111th Senate and thus the old rules still apply. Then some Democratic senator could object and say, no, the 112th Senate is a new body and has to adopt its own rules by majority vote. Much debate would ensue. Eventually, the President of the Senate, Vice President Joe Biden, would ask the Senate Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, for his opinion. But no matter what Frumin (who has no legal authority but is merely an advisor to the chair) said, Biden could rule that the 112th Senate is indeed a new body and needs to adopt its own rules. Many (Republican) senators would no doubt object to the ruling and it would be put up for a vote. If a majority supported the ruling, it would be sustained; otherwise, it would be overturned. If the ruling is sustained, then the Senate would have to adopt new rules by majority vote, with no filibuster possible.

So, allegedly Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema would have to be on-board to remove the filibuster, and that ain’t gonna happen.

So, the thinking goes, make DC and/or Puerto Rico a state, get their senators added into the mix, change the Senate Rules to get rid of the filibuster and then… $15/hr Minimum Wage. And of course that also means that the GQP will truly be a minority party and not have any tools for amply be-chinned Mitch McConnell to use to subvert democracy. Let The Deserts Bloom!

It’s a long-haul solution and probably won’t make much sense to Wee the Peeple why everything is taking so long to accomplish.

The Pod-Save-Whatevs guys recent email thingie:

The bottom line is that if Democrats don’t use their Senate majority to change outlandish, antidemocratic rules (the filibuster, reconciliation limitations, or both) and start passing their wildly popular campaign promises, they’ll be stuck trying to explain the concept of a Senate parliamentarian to disillusioned midterm voters, while Republicans hang back and wait for their voter suppression traps to pay off. Please reread this digest and ask yourself if it sounds like a good campaign slogan. Best to start avoiding that scenario ASAP!

Anyway, look for news stories about statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, that’s the thing.

This entry was posted in Amply Be-Chinned #MoscowMitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, dim-o-crats, The Coup Klux Klan (Republicans). Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to How/Why to Change Senate Rules.

  1. Dennis Cole says:

    The way I heard it interpreted was that it would simply be a matter of VP Harris firing the Parliamentarian, and installing someone more favorable to the Biden administration. Besides, as well – the issue here is that raising the Min Wage has nothing to do with revenue, which falls under the purview of Congress, so it should be no problem to amend the $15 Min increase to include a “special tax” on corps who refuse to comply, thereby making it into a revenue issue and one that can be solved via reconciliation.

    Or are these “Dims in Disarray” merely looking for an excuse to weasel outta this? Like, by saying, “Welp, we tried, but our hands are tied. Stoopid Parliamentarian.”

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.