How come when the Rs have majority, they wield power, and

[intrepidity]

when they're the minority, they wield the power?

IOW, why didn't the Ds have the power for the past 4 years?

It seems like Mitch is calling the shots no matter what.

Why?

[Thekaspervote]

1. It may seem that way. Schumer is ML..turtle isn't calling the shots

[LizBeth]

2. Which leads me to Schumer. I do not want to say anything, but ya. Why are we ALWAYS poewrless.

[kirkuchiyo]

3. I miss Harry Reid. nt

[LizBeth]

14. I do too. I do not know if we get to say it. But yes, I really really do. And I am not remembering

the hand off. Couldn't have been that long ago. But I haven't seen Schumer do anything as I watch Pelosi do and do and do. And ya, I know she has the power but. Like we are talking, it seems rather we have the power or not, we never get the upper hand with McConnell.

[brush]

21. The Senate Rules for this session haven't been agreed on yet.

Schumer and McTurtle are negotiating them now. Until that's done republicans will still be committee chairs. It's just a matter of days. McTurtle of course wants to keep the filibuster rule in place but Durbin has said "We're not going to give him that."

That's where the hold up is as McTurtle and the repugs would abuse that and thus continue their obstructionism. Let's see how this is resolved.

[LizBeth]

24. Yes. I know all that.

[brush]

25. So what's the complaint?

[LizBeth]

26. I am not particularly fond of Schumer's skill, ability but open to be surprised. Complaint? Not so

much but I understand the need to reduce and dismiss what I am saying. Merely an opinion, I am not confident but thrilled to be proven wrong, every step of the way. A fuckin win for all of us. . Work for you?

[William769]

30. I am not particularly fond of your skill, ability to speak on this matter but open to be surprised.

Have a nice day.

[LizBeth]

34. Ok

[dansolo]

41. Keep the filibuster, just make it harder to use

Keep the filibuster, but make it inconvenient to do. That way it will go back to it's original intent, which was to slow down a bill and force additional debate, not kill a bill entirely.

[LizBeth]

42. I agree. Gonna filibuster, make it hurt, lol.

[brush]

45. We need to get rid of it. See post 44.

[LizBeth]

48. I do not know or have an opinion either way. I have heard both argument for/against. I know we do

not have the votes to get rid of it.

[brush]

52. We all need to know its history. It is not to our advantage.

It just keeps the Senate from working how the framers intended. Once we do have the votes, we should ditch it. Same with the EC.

If McConnell wants to keep it, which he does, we know it's not to the Dems advantage.

There's no real need for the Senate to not have a simple majority rule like the House.

[brush]

44. We actually need to get rid of the filibuster as it, like the Electoral College...

is a vestige of slavery. It is not in the Constitution and the first chance we can we should ditch it and to hell with the republicans (incidentally, the ditched it for SCOTUS picks). Let's play hard ball as it basically makes the Senate an inoperable body and is not what Madison, Hamilton, and Lincoln wanted.

The Filibuster and the Ghost of Calhoun Logos Journal
logosjournal.com/.../the-filibuster-and-the-ghost-of-calhoun

In truth, the filibuster accords more closely with John C. Calhoun’s theory of concurrent majority. Conceived in large part to protect the interests of slaveholders, his theory was a clear repudiation of constitutional principles, at least as Madison, Hamilton, and Lincoln understood them.

[Vinca]

4. What drives me nuts is the Republican interpretation of "bi-partisanship" as they

get whatever they want and we can pound sand. They're especially annoying with their new deficit meme and their outrage over executive orders.

[StarfishSaver]

19. What drives me nuts is people who don't know anything about how the Senate works and don't seem

to bother trying to learn immediately jump to the conclusion that our Democratic leaders are stupid, weak or cowards whenever they don't understand what they're doing or why they're doing it (because, as I said, they don't know how the process works and don't seem interested in trying to learn).

[LizBeth]

27. I get that. I waited a year, just sure Obama had the answer somewhere, patiently waited for Garland

to be seated. I do not think it is fair Dems all the way are dismissed with concerns when we see this, and what we all have experienced the last 12 years.

[StarfishSaver]

37. No one's dismissing Dems' concerns. We're dismissing repeated complaints based on their refusal

to try to understand the facts.

[LizBeth]

38. ok

[moonscape]

46. This is why I rely on folks

like Lawrence O’Donnell who’ve spent time in the weeds to lay it out for me. The rules are so nuanced and complicated, that I need guidance approaching 100% of the time. Okay, 100%.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Exactly

It's very complicated. I don't expect everyone to understand it but it's frustrating that people who don't know it not only constantly second-guess those who do, but also ignore/reject information when it's provided by people who do.

[januoro]

5. Today is day 2 since Democrats gained a majority

And you claim Republicans are calling the shots?

[Xipe Totec]

6. There's a difference between power to construct and power to obstruct.

The objective of Republicans is to sabotage government and claim that government doesn't work.

You don't need a majority for that.

[StarfishSaver]

20. This is a great way to explain it

Being on the short end of 50-50 split gives the Republicans a lot of room to obstruct. The Democrats are smart to work out in advance how to get things done to reduce the Republican ability to do that.

[In It to Win It]

51. Bingo! Nail on the head!

That's their objective when they have the majority and when they don't.

[treestar]

7. They want to have as little government as possible

They don't want things to be passed into law.

We want things to be passed into law.

We need a filibuster proof Senate for that.

They only need a small majority or a Leader like Moscow Mitch who won't even put the bills up for vote.

It's not that our side is spineless, it's that it is inherent in the differences in view between the side.

[intrepidity]

12. Thank you, a great explanation

I just need reminding every now and again.

[LizBeth]

29. Good stuff. Thanks Treestar.

[WA-03 Democrat]

8. Chuck is not Harry

I am sure they will develop a plan to lead. Between COVID-19, the Georgia Miracle, the Coup and the last days of Trump it’s been busy. Mitch lost and we will bring change.

[MisterNiceKitty]

9. I understand your point, but give this about 6 months to play out before passing judgment

[intrepidity]

11. Of course

It's a recurrent theme I've noticed over the years, and the MSM most likely plays a huge role in why I have this perception.

[MisterNiceKitty]

54. It's not entirely media - but Schumer has been majority leader for barely two days

However, many Senate Democrats represent states that might have Republicans instead if they weren't more "moderate" in their
policy positions. Still time will tell how this plays under the new leadership.

[bigtree]

10. this is an awful take

Last edited Thu Jan 21, 2021, 02:48 PM - Edit history (3)

...right now, Senate Majority Leader Schumer is in control of what legislation reaches the floor for votes. He sets the agenda for the Senate.

Democrats have that advantage because of VP Harris' role in breaking ties. That's the ONLY advantage of having that 51st vote for Dems.

What's at issue today is the control of committees where the balance is still divided unequally between Democrats and Republicans (and can't be changed without an agreement). Schumer is negotiating a 'power-sharing' arrangement for those committees with McConnell, not for any of the other benefits of the majority - much like the agreement the Democratic majority negotiated in the equally split Senate in 2001.

from The Hill:

Schumer can’t add new Democratic members to committees without such an agreement, and on some panels Republicans would continue to have more members than Democrats.

For example, there are 12 Republicans and only nine Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee after Kamala Harris was sworn in as vice president on Wednesday. Those numbers were set by the organizing resolution of the last Congress.

Durbin, the incoming chairman of the Judiciary panel, said Wednesday it’s not clear if he could advance Merrick Garland, Biden’s nominee for attorney general, without a new resolution. Garland is also the man Obama nominated to the Supreme Court who was blocked by McConnell and the Senate GOP.

A Republican aide said nominees can be moved through committee right now by obtaining unanimous consent from a panel’s entire membership. But that higher bar could slow the processing of Biden’s picks significantly.

McConnell is not calling any shots. None.

[leftstreet]

22. How does that work?

Thanks for the explanation, by the way

So where does control of committees originate?

[bigtree]

35. this is as close a citation I can get right now

from senate.gov

Until the mid-19th century, the Senate made committee appointments either by vote of the full body or decision of its presiding officer. The first method proved inordinately time consuming; the second provoked controversy and dissatisfaction. Finally, in 1846, members agreed to a procedure under which both political parties within the Senate would submit for the full body's approval a slate of members to fill the various committee seats. This new plan fostered development of Senate party conferences (Democrats informally use the designation "caucus" ). Independents and members of third parties have received committee assignments through one or the other of the major party conferences.

In the practice of recent years, party conferences convene before the start of each new Congress to elect leaders and determine committee assignments. Each party conference appoints a "committee on committees" to prepare a roster of members it wishes named to the party's specifically allotted committee seats. The percentage of a party's representation within the Senate determines the percentage of seats it will gain on each committee, although exact numbers are subject to negotiation between party floor leaders.

[leftstreet]

40. Ah

This makes sense. What's often left out of the conversation is the important "subject to negotiation." Leads to a lot of misunderstanding.

Thank you

[StarfishSaver]

23. But it's so much more fun to sit on the sidelines and attack the Dems for being weak or stupid

Or at least weaker and more stupid than the people on the sidelines who don't know jack-squat about how this works.

[LizBeth]

31. I am reading down the thread, loving it and joyed at the fact that we get to have these

conversations again because with Trump and McConnell, meh... what did it matter, They were fuckers.

And a blast listening to -people discuss and then I read these from you. You zapping some of this win/power joy. I find it interesting is all. My world has opened up with this Biden and Dems owning DC... Lots to do, and the sun is shining. I am sorry you think so little of some of us, but ok. I love listening to you too, when actually sharing info and not snark and dismissal.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

43. Is this progression possible, under the present circumstances?

Step one: End the filibuster

Step two: Ram an Organizing Resolution through with a simple majority

Step three: Install a large majority of Democrats on all committees

Step four: Make Mitch McConnell cry early and often

[Kid Berwyn]

13. Spot-on observation.

They can ram through any unqualified moronic demented Federalist Society Justice, 60-vote filibuster or not.

They can stop any well-qualified Democratic nominee, 60-vote filibuster or not.

Weird how that works.

[captain queeg]

15. If I remember correctly there was a time when Obama was president and we had the majority in both?

I say that because I remember John Stewart making a joke about they still couldn’t ram stuff thru. The Rs have been very good at forming a solid block unfortunately, but the Dems have not. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just harder when you when you have a shred of integrity.

[betsuni]

47. Al Franken explains:

"During the 2012 campaign, Republicans and their lackeys in the media liked to claim that Obama 'owned the Congress for the first two years. They did everything he wanted.' That was Mitch McConnell. Chris Wallace of Fox News put it this way: 'The first two years, he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.' I think they kept using this talking point specifically to drive me insane. The truth is that we held a filibuster-proof majority from September 24, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was sworn in), until February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown was sworn in) -- all of four months and ten days."

[Coleman]

16. In another thread the reason is sort of explained

The Senate is full of archaic rules. Power sharing in one of them. It is a rule, that at the beginning of each congress both parties decide how to switch the membership of each committee. The rule isn't the majority party automatically gets one or 2 more committee members than the minority party. They have to agree on how to split up the committees. If they don't agree, they follow the previous year's rule. Which happens to be that the chairmanship is held by a Republican.

Current negotiations, Moscow Mitch is holding out for a "no change in filibuster" rule. And of course Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster plus a +2 advantage in case they lose a democrat or 2 during votes. Moscow Mitch wants to keep the filibuster and a +1 for the democrats.

[intrepidity]

17. Thank you nt

[StarfishSaver]

18. Because the Senate wasn't split 50-50 with only the VP as a tiebreaker on floor votes

[Caliman73]

28. McConnell is not calling the shots.

It seems like Republicans wield power because they do not follow the rules, or they bend them to the point of breaking.

Republicans do not subscribe to the idea of governing. Conservatives typically believe that they have a god given right to rule (hold power), so they are not constrained by the "consent of the governed" like Democrats are.

When Republicans are in power, they push their undemocratic agenda. When they are the minority, they obstruct. Either way, they do not believe in government by consent or that the power of government should be used in any way to "disrupt the natural order" which to them means that the wealthy can do whatever they want without restraint.

We are playing two different games here but We (Democrats) cannot play the Republican's game because if we adapt their strategies, then it means throwing democracy and consent of the governed out the window. I do think that we need to cut out the "pleasantries" that are called for, the "decorum" of calling them "My esteemed colleague" and just call them what they are, liars and authoritarians. We need to fight harder and call them out on their BS.

We also do need to invoke the rules in order to stop their obstruction.

[LizBeth]

33. "It seems like Republicans wield power because they do not follow the rules"

This is what it is so often.

[Caliman73]

36. Yes. It is.

Governing within a context of rules, traditions, and relationships is difficult when the other side does not act in good faith. Like having an argument with a Troll. Your goal may be to clarify information, discuss opposing views, or even to win by persuasion. The problem is that the Troll isn't looking to have a discussion. They are only looking to disrupt and get under your skin. Republicans are only looking to maintain their power. They are not really looking to advance or improve the lives of American citizens (well, maybe the wealthiest ones).

[LizBeth]

39. +1. And worse, people say we need to do the same but even if we lacked integrity, we don't

get away with shit and would be called on it from three different sides. Ya... It very much is interesting how clearly that is and yet we are all forced to live a lie.

[apnu]

32. Our system is designed to give power to the minority.

The R's use that to the fullest extent. The D's are too 'nice' to use it to the fullest extent. This kindness built into the Left is something that the Right gleefully exploits. They're pigs.

[ibegurpard]

49. JFC can we give it more than 1 goddamn day?

Before we start chucking stones at them???

[BGBD]

53. McConnell thinks he has a little leverage

and he's trying to use it to get something he wants.

That's just normal politics in a pretty unusual circumstance. We don't usually have this situation because we rarely have 50/50 Senates. However, he doesn't have all that much leverage. All we would need is a single senator to flip to us to agree on the rules without even coming to an agreements with Mitch.

....maybe there is something we could offer one of their moderate members to entice them to join us. Maybe there's something they'd like to get back for their state. Maybe there's a senator staring down a tough reelection and doesn't want to run as an obstructionist.