We can bypass the filibuster WITHOUT the Liebercrat Manchin. Here's how.

[wellst0nev0ter]

The Senate is an laughably outdated and unrepresentative institution that has outlived its usefulness and is mired in unintelligible rules and customs that has ground governance to a halt.

Fortunately, one of those sets of dumb rules provides an avenue for the Democrats to blow up the filibuster without the help of Manchin of Sinema.

We all know that the Senate can pass legislation via a simple majority through reconciliation, right? But that option is only available for pure spending bills, thanks to the Byrd rule, and the Senate parliamentarian can decide whether a bill passes muster under the Byrd rule.

But Kamala Harris can overrule the parliamentarian's decision, and it takes a 60-vote supermajority to override that move. That means, Senate Democrats can be free to pass whatever legislation they want, be it voting reform or DC statehood.

Of course, there may be some provisos to using that pathway, but this shows that the filibuster is just a boogieman used to keep Democrats in line. If Biden and Harris and the rest of the Democrats finally flex their muscle and exercise political gamesmanship of their own, they can finally overcome the longstanding obstructionism.

[OnDoutside]

2. Excellent video

[MichMan]

3. In the old days, the FBI would be tasked with digging up dirt on a politician or family member

In order to threaten them with blackmail

[FBaggins]

4. Untrue

It takes 51 votes to back her up. The parliamentarian and presiding officer have no actual power.

This is essentially the same nutty “logic” that gave Trump the notion that his VP could reject some electoral votes.

[wellst0nev0ter]

6. Kamala Harris needs no votes

to overrule the parliamentarian. Nelson Rockefeller did not need any votes when he overruled the parliamentarian in 1975.

The only problem is that you need the vote of 51 Dems to pass bills, which will finally put both Manchin and Sinema on the hot seat to either put up or shut up. No more hiding behind the filibuster like a coward.

This option is way better than having the goops perpetually obstruct Biden's agenda.

[FBaggins]

8. Sorry... flatly incorrect

The presiding officer (not just Harris) can overrule the parliamentarian. The problem is that a single senator can challenge that determination and put it to a vote of the full senate. And it doesn’t take 60 votes to defeat her position... it takes a majority to uphold it. A majority that she doesn’t have.

The point is that the presiding officer has no inherent power at all. She can only act if she has a majority of senators behind her.

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. I'm sorry, but I need a reference

Because everywhere else I see, you need a supermajority to overrule the action of the vice president.

I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[FBaggins]

10. Like the reference you provided in the OP?

https://www.riddick.gpo.gov/UserData/SenateProcedures/Appeals.pdf

" Any Senator, may take an appeal from a ruling of the Chair, and when this occurs the question is stated, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?" Unless the Chair is supported by a majority vote of the Senate, the decision of the Chair is overruled"

Your first clue should have been when you thought “Hmmm... I wonder why I know something that all those senators are ignorant of?”

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. Okay, that clear's it up

Appeals cannot be taken: (1) from an opinion expressed by the Chair in response to a parliamentary inquiry

And also:

As I explained to my friend, parliamentarians do not impose their decisions on the House and Senate; they merely advise their presiding officers as to what the precedents indicate should be the correct ruling on a pending parliamentary inquiry or point of order. The chair then has the discretion of either accepting that advice or rejecting it, even knowing the latter course would set a new precedent.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/541706-congresss-parliamentarians-do-not-hand-down-rulings

[FBaggins]

12. You're misreading that first one if you think it relates to the debate here

All that says is that you can’t appeal things like which senator the chair hears first when they rise to make a point on inquiry.

It has nothing to do with the chair’s ability to evaluate senate rules.

[TwilightZone]

5. That's completely false.

In fact, the assertion is so laughably false that it's not worth a debate.

For one, you might want to try counting to 51 without including Manchin and Sinema.

[wellst0nev0ter]

7. That's the whole point

This pathway will force Manchin and Sinema to either vote with the Dems or the goops. No more hiding behind the filibuster.