per CNN GOP plans to filibuster Biden's Homeland Security pick.

[still_one]

Last edited Wed Jan 27, 2021, 05:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Solution is simple, if they cannot get rid of the filibuster, then appoint him as Acting Homeland Security, just like their boy trump did

https://www.rawstory.com/the-nearly-all-white-gop-senate-says-it-will-filibuster-biden-homeland-security-ick-alejandro-mayorkas/

[madaboutharry]

1. What is their reason for opposing him?

[still_one]

7. They didn't say, but I suspect their is a racist element involved

[DeminPennswoods]

21. Rs want to force the filibuster issue

They want to prove Dems don't have the 50 votes + Harris to get rid of it.

But Norm Orenstein was on with O'Donnell the other night and said an easier solution is to change the rule to put the onus on the filibustering party to produce 40 votes to continue. That would mean obstructionist senators couldn't just annouce a filibuster with no consequences and then go about their regular business. They'd have to be the chamber a lot more to vote on whether to continue a filibuster or not, thus making their lives miserable. We've all seen how tedious Senate quorum calls and roll call votes are.

[servermsh]

2. Start the clock today, have the vote on Friday

Hopefully enough Republicans will vote to break the filibuster.

[Laelth]

3. This doesn't bother me too much.

Their own pride compelled them to oppose at least one of Biden’s nominees. So far, they have been remarkably cooperative. That they choose to pick a fight over Homeland Security (immigration policy) makes sense, in the world of their twisted base. How much of a fight they are willing to put up remains to be seen.

-Laelth

[Skraxx]

4. End The Fillibuster for Cabinet Appointments

End it piece by piece if you have to, but the time for playing these bullshit games is over.

Change the rules piece by piece as they obstruct and keep narrowing the fillibuster to nothing. McConnel needs a message.

[lagomorph777]

6. Dump it. Go all Moscow Mitch on it.

[Skraxx]

8. Fillibustering Cabints is Useless Anyway Apparently, So Just Nuke It

[uponit7771]

29. +1,

[Moostache]

5. Why are we even pretending this matters?

Trump ran his cabinet without hardly anyone even getting HEARINGS once he went all-in on "acting" heads...this is meaningless unless we want to handicap ourselves with rules that the other side ignores anyway...

I would tell McConnell to unfuck his caucus or let him know they are going to be irrelevant, period.

Stop giving fucks where none are required any longer.

[ShazzieB]

14. I agree.

"Stop giving fucks where none are required any longer."

This sounds like a great idea to me. I have a limited supply of fucks to give these days anyway, because I used up so many while Chump was in office. Until I have time to restock, I'd rather not waste them on anything that isn't truly fuckworthy!

[uponit7771]

30. +1, "Stop giving fucks where none are required any longer." 👈🏾👈🏾👈🏾 THIS !!!!

[tblue37]

34. Even after the appointment of Acting HS head, Chad Wolf, was deemed illegal, he still stayed in

the position and (illegally) exercised its authority.

[getagrip_already]

9. schumer should call the senate into recess for a few hours...

and let biden make recess appointments. problem solved.

Then hold the hearings.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. Ooooh, I forgot we have this option now that we control the Senate and Presidency, don't we?

[Walleye]

10. I thought they had eliminated the filibuster for cabinet picks

[W_HAMILTON]

13. Me too.

[unblock]

16. It's not the kind of filibuster we're used to. It only takes 50 votes plus Harris to end it.

Really it's just a minor delay, denying fast track and forcing the process to be slightly extended.

So technically it's a filibuster as it delays things, but we don't have to do anything extraordinary to overcome it.

[Walleye]

17. Cool. Thanks, that explains it

[unblock]

18. You're right, though. Reid nuked the 60-vote filibuster for executive appointees in 2013

Judicial appointees as well, just not supreme court nominees. Mcturtle did that in 2017 for gorsuch.

[still_one]

23. .............

https://www.rawstory.com/the-nearly-all-white-gop-senate-says-it-will-filibuster-biden-homeland-security-ick-alejandro-mayorkas/

[unblock]

25. "Filibuster" can refer to any delaying tactic, not just to 60 votes to end debate tactic

[still_one]

27. Yes, I read your post from above. Thanks

[Raven123]

11. In my opinion this is McConnell's 2022 election plan

He plays long. The more he keeps the filibuster front and center and the more attention it gets, the bigger role it will play in the GOP campaign effort in 2022. Dems should not engage on the issue, no matter how they feel. Work around it where possible with reconciliation, change the process to make them openly filibuster, identify themselves and hold the floor. If Mitch is so worried about tradition, get traditional.

And I agree. If it can be done, appoint a temporary director, but be aware, the court may not accept some policies he sets. I think that has happened with a Trump appointment. I suppose Biden can use executive orders to manage that.

[localroger]

15. DHS just put out a national terrorism advisory

...about our good buddies on the domestic right. This could have something to do with that.

[triron]

22. Nah it's just a coincidence. (sarcasm)

[Mike Nelson]

19. Hmm...

... maybe they think he'd be too tough on domestic terrorists...

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

20. Prez should appoint a black woman as Acting Head of Homeland Security

right away. That'll make the Qpubs drop their filibuster like a hot potato.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

28. Make the Qpubs stroke out: Black, muslim, transgender, homosexual socialist with a PhD

[Bucky]

24. I wonder what the problem could *cough*toobrown*cough* be with this nomination?

This country is a self-fucking machine

[Hermit-The-Prog]

26. At least change the rules so a filibuster requires a real filibuster on the floor.

[gratuitous]

31. What happened to all that high-minded rhetoric?

Thinking back all the way to the last administration, Republicans were oh-so-high-minded about letting the President choose his own people, even wildly inappropriate or incompetent people (Carson, DeVos, Chao). All of that is rather suddenly out the window. But I suppose it's divisive to wonder why.

[dsc]

32. the press should be more careful when describing what is going on

In point of fact, no one eliminated any filibusters in the sense of there never being any. What did happen to filibusters of executive and judicial appointees in 2013 and SCOTUS in 2017 was changing the number of votes required to end a filibuster from 60 to 50% plus 1. So yes, they are filibustering Mr. Mayorkas, but if Mr. Mayorkas has the support of all the Democrats he will be confirmed. It will just take one extra vote (a vote to end the filibuster which will require 50% plus 1) and a vote to confirm him (which will also require 50% plus 1). I do think the votes can even be the same day but am not sure of that.

[still_one]

33. Thanks. Perfect explanation. Another user above mentioned it also Some of the media also seem to

be a little loose with the resolution which was "characterized as the constitutionality of impeaching a person who was no longer in office". That is not effectively what it is about, and many people are confused thinking they thought it was the Supreme Court such things. They are correct, it isn't congress who determines the constitutionality of something, and what that resolution was doing is calling for a debate if the "senate" believes it is constitutional as an argument why the impeachment trial should not go forward. That resolution was tabled, but will come up during the trial no doubt because that will be one of the defenses the republicans will use to argue why they think the result of the impeachment trial should not be convicted