Comments on: Reconciliation Goes Nuclear

By: Rollah

Rollah — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:43:38 +0000

Zas, I already used that line from the movie. Mole

By: Jonathan Zasloff

Jonathan Zasloff — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 04:59:52 +0000

Hi Steve –

I was referring to the Budget Act of 1974, which gives authority for the rulings to “the Chair.” But I see your point. Theoretically, the President Pro Tempore could be “the Chair”. Maybe it’s because they don’t trust Bob Byrd to do what they want him to. And I wouldn’t exactly blame them for that.

By: Steve Bainbridge

Steve Bainbridge — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:19:06 +0000

As an ex-parliamentarian (long story), I agree with you that the parliamentarian position is an advisory one, not one of power. I’m unclear, however, as to why you insist that the Vice president has to make the ruling. Why couldn’t the President pro tem do it? Senate Rule XX on questions of order refers to the Presiding Officer making the ruling.

By: Kenneth Almquist

Kenneth Almquist — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:44:01 +0000

“Nobody said anything about presiding”

Johnathan highlighted this passage:

“[The Vice President] has the authority to do that. He is the president of the Senate.”

This implies “presiding” because unless the Vice President chooses to preside over the Senate, he has no authority what-so-ever with respect to that body.

By: Brock

Brock — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:39:14 +0000

You don’t use the Office of Legal Counsel to authorize illegal behavior and give your people a Get Out of Jail Free card — but they did.

To be fair, that was executive branch Republicans, not congressional Republicans.

By: Fr33d0m

Fr33d0m — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:53:12 +0000

Nobody said anything about presiding.

By: Kenneth Almquist

Kenneth Almquist — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:49:40 +0000

First of all, the passage appears to imply that if the Vice President doesn’t preside over the Senate, then the parliamentarian does. That’s false. Except on the rare occasions when the Vice President shows up, the task of presiding over the Senate is assigned to some Senator. The presiding officer may consult with the parliamentarian on how to rule on a particular issue, but the ultimate decision is up to the presiding officer.

One consequence of this is that a majority of the Senate can choose to ignore the rules at any time. Can’t get the 60 votes required to break a filibuster? Have the chair rule that 60 votes aren’t required. The chair’s ruling can be appealed to the Senate, but it takes only a simple majority to uphold the ruling.

“The goal of Congressional Republicans since 1994 has been nothing less than the destruction of the informal institutions of government — the shared understandings about some things that are ‘just not done.’”

But while they considered the possibility of having Cheney rule that it doesn’t take 60 votes to defeat a filibuster, they ultimately did not do so. So, yes, what you are proposing does seem more extreme than anything the Republicans have done.

By: Ed Whitney

Ed Whitney — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:45:46 +0000

Well, I guess I am turning into a new kind of birther. I have no doubts whatever that Obama was born in the United States, but I am beginning to wonder if he ever lived in Chicago.

By: MobiusKlein

MobiusKlein — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:16:43 +0000

Uh, it’s the (R) gang feeding the shit sandwich right now. Proposing Aleph Null amendments is not what The Founders ™ envisioned.
There needs to be a way to pass legislation with less than 60% of the Senate. If my company operated like the Senate, we would be toast.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 01:53:33 +0000

And when you next lose control of the Senate, and the Republicans feed you the same shit sandwich, you’ll whine like a little baby. That’s my prediction.