Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[beanman12345]

Yeah, I'm just going to quote this, point at it, and say "yep".

It's the same mistake as calling SCOTUS ruling "opinions".

Okay let's destroy this really bad argument. SCOTUS has 9 people, not 1, and almost always give multiple opinions, and hardly ever agree unanimously. And even then some opinions are just bad for the country, unless you are argueing Citizens Unlted is good, are you argueing Citizens United is good? So yeah, some opinions are just bad, and unless that, they should not be followed. SCOTUS is law of the land, Parlimentary is NOT. Sorry but your analogy is just terrible.

[Breccia]

Sorry but your analogy is just terrible.

It really isn't.

1) The court, collectively, comes to a decision.

2) That decision has weight, and is followed.

3) The term is called "opinion" but this name does not allow it to be handwaved as "pfft, opinion, break the law anyhow".

The parliamentarian's decision is binding, unless overruled by the VP -- something SCOTUS does not have to worry about. That's it. If the parliamentarian's result could be handwaved with "pfft, opinion, pass the bill anyhow" we wouldn't spend seven pages talking about it. The fact that her job role happens to have the word "advice" does nothing to diminish, or remove, the role of that office.

I have, and will continue, to express dismay that the minimum wage can't be increased this way, for the same reason I'm not a fan of Citizens United. However, neither result can be handwaved. Which, if you read my post, was my point.

[beanman12345]

It really isn't.

1) The court, collectively, comes to a decision.

2) That decision has weight, and is followed.

3) The term is called "opinion" but this name does not allow it to be handwaved as "pfft, opinion, break the law anyhow".

The parliamentarian's decision is binding, unless overruled by the VP -- something SCOTUS does not have to worry about. That's it. If the parliamentarian's result could be handwaved with "pfft, opinion, pass the bill anyhow" we wouldn't spend seven pages talking about it. The fact that her job role happens to have the word "advice" does nothing to diminish, or remove, the role of that office.

I have, and will continue, to express dismay that the minimum wage can't be increased this way, for the same reason I'm not a fan of Citizens United. However, neither result can be handwaved. Which, if you read my post, was my point.

Except this can be handwaved, you literally explained how it can be handwaved. So yeah, your terrible argument is really terribly.

[Breccia]

Except this can be handwaved, you literally explained how it can be handwaved.

Ah, I see, you think Harris overruling her counts as handwaving. It's a difference in terminology. No, the parliamentarian's decision cannot be handwaved. The Senate is bound by the office's decision, just like law enforcement in the US is bound by a federal judge's decision that SCOTUS decided not to overrule. It's not really "handwaving" if only one person has the legal authority to overrule the office.

[Draco-Onis]

It's a political chip on the table that he knows he can play, especially if he wants the progresdive caucus to vote on a particular bill later.

It cannot pass any other way because of the filibuster, he just doesn't want to do it that simple.

[beanman12345]

Ah, I see, you think Harris overruling her counts as handwaving. It's a difference in terminology. No, the parliamentarian's decision cannot be handwaved. The Senate is bound by the office's decision, just like law enforcement in the US is bound by a federal judge's decision that SCOTUS decided not to overrule. It's not really "handwaving" if only one person has the legal authority to overrule the office.

I didn't expect this from you. like wtf? they are not bound by law to obey her... there are literally rules that say that they do not have to obey her. It wouldn't be the first, it wouldn't be the last.

[Draco-Onis]

Ah, I see, you think Harris overruling her counts as handwaving. It's a difference in terminology. No, the parliamentarian's decision cannot be handwaved. The Senate is bound by the office's decision, just like law enforcement in the US is bound by a federal judge's decision that SCOTUS decided not to overrule. It's not really "handwaving" if only one person has the legal authority to overrule the office.

Law enforcement cannot fire a federal judge or ignore them by a simple majority vote, you are putting way too much power in the parliamentarian's hands.

[Bodakane]

It really isn't.

1) The court, collectively, comes to a decision.

2) That decision has weight, and is followed.

3) The term is called "opinion" but this name does not allow it to be handwaved as "pfft, opinion, break the law anyhow".

The parliamentarian's decision is binding, unless overruled by the VP -- something SCOTUS does not have to worry about. That's it. If the parliamentarian's result could be handwaved with "pfft, opinion, pass the bill anyhow" we wouldn't spend seven pages talking about it. The fact that her job role happens to have the word "advice" does nothing to diminish, or remove, the role of that office.

I have, and will continue, to express dismay that the minimum wage can't be increased this way, for the same reason I'm not a fan of Citizens United. However, neither result can be handwaved. Which, if you read my post, was my point.

The parliamentarian's decision is not law while the SCOTUS's is. That's why it can be overturned, without trial or ruling by a court.

This is the same type of thing that Mueller let bind him from flat out saying Trump was guilty.....procedural...that decision literally cost 500K people their lives ultimately.

Keeping to the parliamentarian's decision is now an anachronism. It was important in an era when both sides had a respect for procedure, but the Repubs destroyed that era. And it is not that they burned the rules to the ground so they no longer exist. It is that they learned they can ignore them and will not abide by them any time soon. Forget Trump's many crimes, and look at what McConnell did with the SC, alone.

What that effectively does is create a football game where one team follows the rules and the other can have too many men on the field, interfere, hold, forward lateral, run out of bounds, commit personal fouls, etc. and face no consequences from the refs. Who is gonna win that game?

[Breccia]

Law enforcement cannot fire a federal judge or ignore them by a simple majority vote, you are putting way too much power in the parliamentarian's hands.

I don't think I am. If it was that simple and that direct to overrule the parliamentarian, the Democrats would have done it by now. If the parliamentarian's say in the matter had no effect, it wouldn't have gone through eight pages. I think that basically everyone has been saying "it's over" and not "well she's entitled to her opinion, but we're going to put it up for vote anyhow".

If there was no restriction to obey the parliamentarian, then...why have one? Why ask their insight into the rules of the Senate, and then say "well thanks for doing that research, we're still going to vote on it because we really want to"?

Why are tax cuts for individuals temporary? Why didn't Trump, Pence, or McConnell say "We understand there's a limit to the amount the tax cuts can add to the deficit, but we're going to add more anyhow because we want to"?

The Byrd rule also is the reason that key
elements of the new tax law—including the reduction in individual income tax
rates, the expansion of the child tax credit, the increase in the standard deduction,
the new deduction for pass-through income, and the increase in the estate and
gift tax exemption—are set to expire at the end of 2025. And the Byrd rule is the
reason why a number of provisions that appeared in earlier versions of the bill—
including a measure that would have allowed 501(c)(3) organizations to
participate in political campaigns, several significant changes to the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit, and the repeal of the tax-exempt status of professional
sports leagues—all were eliminated from the final legislation.

Why hasn't the parliamentarian been overruled since 1975? Same concept: why was the parliamentarian fired/replaced in 2001, but also, why hasn't one been fired since?

I'm not the one ascribing them too much power. They already have that power. I'm just the one pointing it out.

Or, come up with a better reason the tax cuts for the rich, and the current situation, ended up the way they did. I'm in no hurry.

[beanman12345]

All knowing parliamentarian, never overruled parliamentarian.

[kaid]

If they thought they had the votes for it they would overrule the parliamentarian. They don't manchin and sinema would use that overruling as the easy excuse to vote against it hand waving norms and "how things are done". Honestly I am still worried manchin still votes against it because he is a dumbass anyway.

[Breccia]

If they thought they had the votes for it they would overrule the parliamentarian. They don't

Yeah, that sounds right to me.

[beanman12345]

Yeah, that sounds right to me.

Yup, it's actually really that simple.

[Benggaul]

Neera Tanden has dropped out.

Whether or not you agree that she would have been a good pick, the reason for the GOP (and that fucktard Manchin) to be against confirming her are patently ridiculous given the pass they've given Trump and their own GOP colleagues for the past 4 years and more.

[Felya]

Neera Tanden has dropped out.

Whether or not you agree that she would have been a good pick, the reason for the GOP (and that fucktard Manchin) to be against confirming her are patently ridiculous given the pass they've given Trump and their own GOP colleagues for the past 4 years and more.

There were leftist against her as well, but I never got a reason, beyond Hillary Clinton.

[beanman12345]

There were leftist against her as well, but I never got a reason, beyond Hillary Clinton.

I am a mean asshole at times, especially on here, well, only on here, so I guess, don't be a mean asshole or you won't get to be secretary, unless, republicans are in charge.

[Felya]

I am a mean asshole at times, especially on here, well, only on here, so I guess, don't be a mean asshole or you won't get to be secretary, unless, republicans are in charge.

Well, depending on my mood... I either call democrats pussies, for not doing what GOP has been doing for decades... or point out the different rules for democrats and republicans. But... while typing this... I thought of a third... if democrats were doing it the same way as republicans, would we even vote for them? I’m tempted to say yes, but I would want to be better...

[Zan15]

Neera Tanden has dropped out.

Whether or not you agree that she would have been a good pick, the reason for the GOP (and that fucktard Manchin) to be against confirming her are patently ridiculous given the pass they've given Trump and their own GOP colleagues for the past 4 years and more.

mean tweets!!!! feelings hurt!!!!

[Milchshake]

mean tweets!!!! feelings hurt!!!!

We want to be like Republicans!


Meaning: We want to attack Dems without consequence. Then cry to Chuck Todd when Dems push back.

[Themius]

There were leftist against her as well, but I never got a reason, beyond Hillary Clinton.

How could you not get it? it's the conflicts. Similar to the raytehon guy.