How VP Harris Can Sideline Moscow Mitch

[Arkansas Granny]

Even if the Democrats don’t win control of the Senate, there is a way to strip Mitch McConnell of his power for good: priority recognition.

According to Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution, the Vice President is also the President of the Senate. The Majority Leader is not a position that exists anywhere in the Constitution. The reason that the Majority Leader has near-dictatorial powers to control floor votes is because of a tradition that dates back to 1937. The tradition is that the Vice President gives the floor leaders priority recognition. Most notably, this is not a rule in the Senate.

As President of the Senate, Vice President Harris could give any senator priority recognition. That senator could then decide on all legislation that is brought before the entire Senate. Even with a minority in the Senate, Vice President Harris could simply give Chuck Schumer priority recognition. He could decide what is voted on and what isn’t.

This would change everything. Without Mitch McConnell to hide behind, the moderate Republican Senators would be forced to vote down every cabinet member, bill, resolution – everything that Harris would want done. Without McConnell, anything even remotely popular with at least two senators would pass, including getting a cabinet assembled.

https://newsflector.com/how-vp-harris-can-sideline-moscow-mitch/

[Mike Nelson]

1. I think...

... it's time for the President of the Senate to fully position herself. If the roles were reversed, Moscow Mitch would, so why not Kamala?

[luv2fly]

4. Thom Hartmann has been talking about this for a week or so

Seems most of his guests that talk about it believe it won't happen. Dems are just too nice.

[onenote]

7. It's not a matter of being too nice

It’s a dumb idea. McConnell could and would engineer a revision of the rules to expressly require priority recognition be given to the majority leader. In other words, its an idea that can’t succeed.

Moreover, Biden— who served in the Senate for 36 years and as President of the Senate for eight— have other plans for howHarris should spend her time than sitting around the Capitol building every day.

[StarfishSaver]

12. It still amazes me

how people assume they've come up with things that never occurred to the people actually in the arena - and that the fact they didn't already do it must be because they never thought about it and not because they considered it and figured out a long time ago that it wasn't a workable idea.

[onenote]

16. yep. tom hartman has a varied resume, but it doesn't include having worked on Capitol Hill

and what he doesn't know about the arcane ins and outs of Senate procedure (and what most people accepting his idea as plausible don't know) could fill books.

[Trueblue Texan]

17. I understand this, BUT...

...think about how many things have been described "unprecedented" since Trump took office. Clearly there are lots of things that could have been tried but weren't because they were considered destructive to the Republic, which Dems seem to care more about than Rethugs, or questionable from a legal or workable perspective. Yet the Rethugs have gotten away with a lot of shit no one thought to try before.

[StarfishSaver]

19. I didn't say it wasn't tried because it was destructive to the republuc

They didn't do it because it wouldn't work. That's very different.

[onenote]

20. It's not a question of not having been tried. It's something that won't work.

Particularly in the case of nominations, where the Senate rules clearly require referral to a committee and there is virtually no way for the minority in the Senate to force a nomination out of committee for a floor vote.

[Roy Rolling]

28. Right...

It won’t work because of the Senate tradition? Of course, the Senate and the whole Trump administration are respectful of precedent and procedural details.

That’s sarcasm. Stop speculating how McConnell will already defeat attempts to run the Senate as designed by their rules. For every obstacle, Democrats can think of an overcome.

Predicting the future is not fact. And I don’t care if it wouldn’t work as much as I appreciate them giving Senate Republicans and McConnell a hard time. Haven’t Democrats learned the Merrick Garland lesson? Don’t go away quietly.

[onenote]

30. It won't work because of the Senate's rules, which the Constitution empowers the Senate to make.

It's not merely tradition.

[bottomofthehill]

34. And, the Senate Rules package gets past while Pence is still VP

There is a couple week lag between when the senate gets sworn in and when the VP gets sworn in. The Republicans will pass the rules package long before VP Harris has an impact.

If the Dems win both seats and have a majority with the VP, then they can rewrite the rules if they want. Although if they have a majority, they won’t need to

[FBaggins]

27. It's a variation on some of the whacky impeachment theories

In fact... it’s the same error. “I see ‘preside’ in the constitution and that must mean what I want it to mean” - like Roberts make the rules.

[onenote]

32. +1

And the Constitution never says the Vice President "presides" over the Senate. It merely says the Vice President acts as the "President" of the Senate, with the Senate able to appoint a President Pro Tempore to serve in that role if the Vice President isn't present. It never says what it means to be "President" of the Senate, but it certainly doesn't mean that the VP (or a single senator sitting as President Pro Tem can override or make up Senate rules unilaterally -- not when the Constitution expressly gives that rule making authority to the Senate.

[dware]

37. I don't understand why people keep posting this nonsense,

this is what, like the 2nd or 3rd time this has been posted?

I do love reading your posts, very knowledgeable on the law.

[Nitram]

36. Not only is it dumb, it would dangerous. We will have another Republican president - and VP.

[NurseJackie]

2. Could this have been done to short-circuit McConnell's refusal to vote on...

... Obama's supreme court nominee? If so, why wasn't it? Or... another way to ask: Why did the Obama administration reject it as a tactic/technique?

[Escurumbele]

6. Excellent question

[onenote]

8. No

Last edited Tue Dec 1, 2020, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

To explain: Judicial nominations are required to be referred to committee. There is no requirement that a committee report a nomination to the full Senate (nor is there even a requirement that a committee hold hearings on a nomination). While there is a process for forcing a nomination to be discharged from committee, that process is virtually impossible without majority support. The motion to discharge usually requires unanimous consent and in any event would require multiple votes, some of which would require a supermajority.

In short, the Vice President, acting as the presiding officer, can't short circuit the process for getting a nomination from committee to the floor.

[rainin]

9. Obama was careful to respect norms.

We need to get over that. Now! I'm praying President Biden is willing to be aggressive.

[onenote]

21. Biden was a senator for 36 years and President of the Senate for eight.

He has a bit more knowledge about the Senate's rules than Tom Hartman does and he isn't going to waste Harris' time on something he knows won't work.

[StarfishSaver]

11. See my post below

He didn't try it because it wasn't an actual option

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

3. Power grab usually has negative connotations...

But this would be the best grab most likely in the history of the senate.

The republican howling would be heard ‘round the wor...nah...solar system!

[StarfishSaver]

10. This sounds good, but won't work

The ability to give priority recognition isn't set by the Constitution or even by Senate rule - it's simply a practice in the Senate that can easily be changed by a rule.

The Constitution gives the VP the authority to preside over the Senate, but she must preside according to Senate rules. If the Senate determines how recognition is given, the VP must preside accordingly. And there's no way the Republican majority is going to allow the Democratic vice president to determine what legislation is brought up and considered on the Senate floor. If she even looks like she may try it, McConnell will put the brakes in it forthwith.

[NurseJackie]

14. I figured. The whole scheme sounds like unrealistic pie-in-the-sky.

Thanks for your detailed explanation.

[bucolic_frolic]

25. "authority to preside over the Senate, but she must preside according to Senate rules"

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

If you're going to change accepted Senate norms that aren't written in stone in the Constitution, you're going to have to expect and create conflict. It seems to me what keeps this change from happening is uncertainty as to how it will play out. It would prompt a month long debate on rules, origins of rules, Constitution - and if all you wind up with is status quo, you have damaged your credibility.

Sadly this seems to me a case of majority rule, not Constitutional structure. If you don't have the votes to change precedent, you won't start the argument.

Never again should legislation be squelched the way Moscow Mitch has done, same for debate, filibuster. They could be limited - 3 filibusters a year of 5 days duration each. And bringing legislation to vote could be the perogative of both Majority and Minority leader.
The purpose of democracy is majority rule, but not to asphyxiate the minority. Significant minorities should be heard, they just shouldn't dictate.

[onenote]

29. The Constitution expressly gives the power to make its rules to the Senate.

You want to know where it says that?

Article I, Section 5.

The Constitution says the Vice President shall act as "President" of the Senate but nowhere describes what being "President" of the Senate means, but it certainly doesn't mean the Vice President (or a member of the Senate acting as President Pro Tempore) gets to override or ignore the rules established by the Senate pursuant to its express Constitutional authority.

[BasicallyComplicated]

13. It's in the Constitution

It's OK to play by the rules. It's also OK To use the rules in your favour when the other side has made clear They have no plans to allow you to succeed. Understand their 36 Republican senate seats up for reelection in 2 years. Every weapon you have if you want this administration to be successful. The last 4 years have been devastating and we can't play games.

[onenote]

18. The Vice President presides over the Senate -- he or she doesn't make the Senate rules.

The Constitution expressly gives the Senate the authority to set its own rules.

Think of it this way: the presiding officer is like a traffic cop. But a traffic cop doesn't write traffic rules. If the rules say no left turn, the traffic cop enforces the no left turn rule; he or she doesn't get to decide to allow left turns unless the rules permit it.

[BasicallyComplicated]

40. Agreed however ,

getting votes to the floor must be tried by all means. Make the stink. Get Micych on the record for not wanting to put Covid funds to the American people. Fail but do so to expose this to the population that doesn't see republican BS. The people that only pay attention right before an election. Bully NOW not when it's well we elected Biden and look nothing happened.

[FBaggins]

15. Untrue - The presiding officer has no constitutional powers

Any decision by the chair (whether by the VP or the President pro tempore) is subject to a vote of the entire Senate. WIthout the majority, all this would do is slow things down.

This would change everything. Without Mitch McConnell to hide behind, the moderate Republican Senators would be forced to vote down every cabinet member, bill, resolution – everything that Harris would want done.

Just the opposite. It would just delay nominations further (with Harris blamed) - and they could still block any bill they didn't want to vote on.

[MRDAWG]

22. Kamala should take the gavel and call the Senate AND NOT....

relinquish the job as President of the Senate.

She should immediately call for a vote on HR1- NO FILIBUSTER allowed.

[Tarc]

23. This is fantasy, and not how the Senate works

We have better things to work on once Biden is president.

[onenote]

24. She doesn't get to make the rules.

Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Harman doesn't know diddly about the Senate rules and he's creating false hope. Bad on him.

[FreepFryer]

26. I was interested in this idea the last few weeks but if Hartmann says it it's usually BS. nt

[usaf-vet]

31. I believe I have seen this same suggestion 2, maybe 3 times on this site.

It seems like there are problems with it. Although I would love to see it happen my guess is it can't or at least won't happen.

Georgia seems like the best chance. Send money to help make it happen.

[Evolve Dammit]

33. I was hoping she could just take him out like Rand Paul's neighbor....Is that wrong??

[world wide wally]

35. McConnell is too incompetent to run the Senate.

There are still bills from 2018 sitting on his desk that he won't bring to a vote.
Fuck him.

[StarfishSaver]

38. McConnell is many things, but incompetent isn't one of them

Those bills are sitting on his desk because he wants them to sit on his desk.

[dware]

39. If Moscow Mitch is so incompetent,

then how has he managed to get 3 unqualified nominee's confirmed to the USSC?

He's a lot of things, but incompetence isn't one of them.

[world wide wally]

41. Did I say incompetent?

I must have meant incontinent.

[dware]

42. There ya go.

He is that, on both ends of his body.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

43. I don't like Trump's nominees, but they weren't unqualified.

Maybe Kavanaugh is the worst of them, but they were all deemed well qualified by the ABA.

[dware]

44. Unqualified as in they lied or omitted certain facts. nt