Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Graham still talking about leaving town. Do it, you dickmite. (Original Post) Nevilledog Jul 2021 OP
it actually does. drray23 Jul 2021 #1
Not all 50 would leave. Murkowski, Romney & Collins would stay IMHO Nevilledog Jul 2021 #2
yes that is what I think might happen if they try it. drray23 Jul 2021 #4
The Senate operates on the presumption that a quorum exists. tritsofme Jul 2021 #7
ooooo! I love that! Let's do it. Bye, Lindsey! lindysalsagal Jul 2021 #8
Manchin and/or Sinema would block it, 100% guaranteed nt Celerity Jul 2021 #10
Extremely unlikely. But attack them for no reason if it makes you feel better. tritsofme Jul 2021 #16
of course they would, they both insist on the fetishisation of so-called bi-partisanship nt Celerity Jul 2021 #17
You are completely full of shit. This accusation is baseless and unfounded. tritsofme Jul 2021 #18
Nice vulgar, crude language. No I am not full of shit , and it's not an attack. It is simply stating Celerity Jul 2021 #22
It should be more than obvious that if Senate Democrats were gifted with such a scenario tritsofme Jul 2021 #24
I was extremely specific in what I said. If we trued to pass legislation that Manchin and Sinema Celerity Jul 2021 #25
That Manchin/Sinema would object to bills they oppose is not particularly deep insight. tritsofme Jul 2021 #31
I disagree with your framing. Manchin's refusal to support every single suggested modification Celerity Jul 2021 #32
I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of here? I'm aware Manchin opposes modifying tritsofme Jul 2021 #33
Hah! Sweet! lagomorph777 Jul 2021 #14
50 dems plus harris Fullduplexxx Jul 2021 #9
no. the vp is not counted in the quorum. nt. drray23 Jul 2021 #15
So, we really only need one or two to stick around Bettie Jul 2021 #12
No. Any Republicans present, even Collins or Murkowski, will never vote to allow us to pass Celerity Jul 2021 #26
Dang it, Cel...I was Bettie Jul 2021 #27
It is all hypothetical and unlikely anyway, but for pointing out simple examples where Celerity Jul 2021 #28
It's true...and pointing out that two of our own Bettie Jul 2021 #29
I will add a positive thing. IF all the Rethugs leave, and IF it's a bill all 50 Dems agree with, it Celerity Jul 2021 #30
Don't let the door hit you in the ass captain queeg Jul 2021 #3
I don't know why people always say that MurrayDelph Jul 2021 #20
Its satire, drawing attention to the fact he's leaving and showing that's ok with me captain queeg Jul 2021 #21
He's too ineffective or weak to actually convince *every single* Repuke to stay away, so there's RockRaven Jul 2021 #5
Errand boy of the oligarchs. CentralMass Jul 2021 #6
Improving the Senate - one GQP member leaving at a time. Vinca Jul 2021 #11
It won't happen. GoCubsGo Jul 2021 #13
"Lindsey Graham and the Dickmites" would be a great name for a punk rock group. yellowcanine Jul 2021 #19
K&R for "dickmite". 11 Bravo Jul 2021 #23

drray23

(7,616 posts)
1. it actually does.
Mon Jul 19, 2021, 11:15 PM
Jul 2021

The US senate needs at least 51 senators present for quorum. If all 50 republicans leave we would not have quorum.

tritsofme

(17,370 posts)
7. The Senate operates on the presumption that a quorum exists.
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 01:27 AM
Jul 2021

If all 50 Republicans left, there would be no senator present to suggest the absence of a quorum, and Senate Democrats could pass measures by unanimous consent.

tritsofme

(17,370 posts)
18. You are completely full of shit. This accusation is baseless and unfounded.
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 12:02 PM
Jul 2021

It is just an attack on Democratic senators, whose only source is your imagination.

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
22. Nice vulgar, crude language. No I am not full of shit , and it's not an attack. It is simply stating
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 04:52 PM
Jul 2021

an extremely likely outcome.

Let's posit all 50 Rethugs (including Collins and Murkowski, who Manchin is ultra tight with) fled DC and refused to return. Then IF Manchin and/or Sinema did not suggest and absence of a quorum, we could pass (even if they objected to unanimous consent aka 'without objection') anything that was put up, including multiple items, bills, parts of bills, etc, that they are both against. It would not have to be just them against those things (or others) either. Other Dems could be against certain bills or parts of those bills.

They would do it (suggest an absence of a quorum) also because once it gets down to a request for a rollcall vote aka 'requesting the yeas and the nays' (which triggers a quorum call as well), which would come after a string of other options that do not require a quorum call (in order they are: without objection, then a voice vote, then a division (archaic, not used) a minimum of 11 Senators must request that rollcall vote (see below) and they would be powerless to stop it (unless they had at least 11 Dems in toto to side with them as well).

Manchin and Sinema already refuse to even make new exceptions or modifications to the filibuster, let alone bin it. Sinema wants a 60 vote threshold on ALL Senate business. They repeatedly, over and over, state the minority needs to be heard and have active input, which would be impossible if the Senate were compose of all Dems.

So no, I am NOT full of shit, and I am not attacking them at all. I am only stating the most likely outcome.

Not my problem you do not like my answer and chose to revert to crude attacks yourself.





tritsofme

(17,370 posts)
24. It should be more than obvious that if Senate Democrats were gifted with such a scenario
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 06:26 PM
Jul 2021

That leadership would only move consensus items, that could win unanimous consent within the caucus.

Anything passed would be done fully within current rules. Further, the Senate routinely operates under unanimous consent without any sort objection on principle from Manchin or Sinema, this would be no different.

Even in this highly unlikely and purely hypothetical scenario, you just can’t help yourself from launching baseless attacks on Democratic senators.

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
25. I was extremely specific in what I said. If we trued to pass legislation that Manchin and Sinema
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 06:36 PM
Jul 2021

disagreed with, they would block it. Of course it is purely hypothetical, and I laid out the exact parameters wherein my statement would come into play. You are ex post facto now adding in caveats, caveats that are not germane to what I said.

You also keep on trying to falsely frame my statements as some sort of 'attack' when it is simply a statement of Manchin and Sinema's actual stances.

tritsofme

(17,370 posts)
31. That Manchin/Sinema would object to bills they oppose is not particularly deep insight.
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 07:29 PM
Jul 2021

It’s you who is adding late caveats, the original response indicated they would “block it, 100% guaranteed” because of a “fetishisation of so-called bi-partisanship”

There are tons of House passed bills that Senate Democrats are fully united on, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to suggest that Manchin or Sinema would interfere with their passage if they could be moved through unanimous consent, under current rules. There’s no doubt that implication is a direct attack upon them.

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
32. I disagree with your framing. Manchin's refusal to support every single suggested modification
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 07:43 PM
Jul 2021

of the filibuster so far (and using so-called bi-partisanship as a key rationale), and Sinema's desire to require a 60 vote majority for all Senate business is ample evidence of my claim of fetishisation of so-called bi-partisanship.


Joe Manchin: I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-manchin-filibuster-vote/2021/04/07/cdbd53c6-97da-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html

“There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster,” Manchin wrote. “The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation.”


The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation



Sinema:

“I want to restore the 60-vote threshold for all elements of the Senate’s work”

https://www.vox.com/22319564/filibuster-reform-manchin-democrats-nuclear-option




The filibuster hurts only Senate Democrats — and Mitch McConnell knows that

The numbers don't lie.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/filibuster-hurts-only-senate-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-knows-n1255787

snip

Cutting off debate in the Senate so legislation can be voted on is done through a procedure called "cloture," which requires three-fifths of the Senate — or 60 votes — to pass. I went through the Senate's cloture votes for the last dozen years from the 109th Congress until now, tracking how many of them failed because they didn't hit 60 votes. It's not a perfect method of tracking filibusters, but it's as close as we can get. It's clear that Republicans have been much more willing — and able — to tangle up the Senate's proceedings than Democrats. More important, the filibuster was almost no impediment to Republican goals in the Senate during the Trump administration. Until 2007, the number of cloture votes taken every year was relatively low, as the Senate's use of unanimous consent agreements skipped the need to round up supporters. While a lot of the cloture motions did fail, it was still rare to jump that hurdle at all — and even then, a lot of the motions were still agreed to through unanimous consent. That changed when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and McConnell first became minority leader. The number of cloture motions filed doubled compared to the previous year, from 68 to 139.

Things only got more dire as the Obama administration kicked off in 2009, with Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Of the 91 cloture votes taken during the first two years of President Barack Obama's first term, 28 — or 30 percent — failed. All but three failed despite having majority support. The next Congress was much worse after the GOP took control of the House: McConnell's minority blocked 43 percent of all cloture votes taken from passing. Things were looking to be on the same course at the start of Obama's second term. By November 2013, 27 percent of cloture votes had failed even though they had majority support. After months of simmering outrage over blocked nominees grew, Senate Democrats triggered the so-called nuclear option, dropping the number of votes needed for cloture to a majority for most presidential nominees, including Cabinet positions and judgeships. The next year, Republicans took over the Senate with Obama still in office. By pure numbers, the use of the filibuster rules skyrocketed under the Democratic minority: 63 of 123 cloture votes failed, or 51 percent. But there's a catch: Nothing that was being voted on was covered by the new filibuster rules. McConnell had almost entirely stopped bringing Obama's judicial nominees to the floor, including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

McConnell defended the filibuster on the Senate floor last week, reminding his counterparts of their dependence on it during President Donald Trump's term. "Democrats used it constantly, as they had every right to," he said. "They were happy to insist on a 60-vote threshold for practically every measure or bill I took up." Except, if anything, use of the filibuster plummeted those four years. There are two main reasons: First, and foremost, the amount of in-party squabbling during the Trump years prevented any sort of coordinated legislative push from materializing. Second, there wasn't actually all that much the Republicans wanted that needed to get past the filibuster in its reduced state after the 2013 rule change. McConnell's strategy of withholding federal judgeships from Obama nominees paid off in spades, letting him spend four years stuffing the courts with conservatives. And when Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was filibustered, McConnell didn't hesitate to change the rules again. Trump's more controversial nominees also sailed to confirmation without any Democratic votes. Legislatively, there were only two things Republicans really wanted: tax cuts and repeal of Obamacare. The Trump tax cuts they managed through budget reconciliation, a process that allows budget bills to pass through the Senate with just a majority vote.

Republicans tried to do the same for health care in 2017 to avoid the filibuster, failing only during the final vote, when Sen. John McCain's "no" vote denied them a majority. The repeal wouldn't have gone through even if the filibuster had already been in the grave. As a result, the number of successful filibusters plummeted: Over the last four years, an average of 7 percent of all cloture motions failed. In the last Congress, 298 cloture votes were taken, a record. Only 26 failed. Almost all of the votes that passed were on nominees to the federal bench or the executive branch. In fact, if you stripped out the nominations considered in the first two years of Trump's term, the rate of failure would be closer to 15 percent — but on only 70 total votes. There just wasn't all that much for Democrats to get in the way of with the filibuster, which is why we didn't hear much complaining from Republicans. Today's Democrats aren't in the same boat. Almost all of the big-ticket items President Joe Biden wants to move forward require both houses of Congress to agree. And given McConnell's previous success in smothering Obama's agenda for political gain, his warnings about the lack of "concern and comity" that Democrats are trying to usher in ring hollow. In actuality, his warnings of "wait until you're in the minority again" shouldn't inspire concern from Democrats. So long as it applies only to legislation, the filibuster is a Republicans-only weapon. There's nothing left, it seems, for the GOP to fear from it — aside from its eventual demise.

snip

tritsofme

(17,370 posts)
33. I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of here? I'm aware Manchin opposes modifying
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 09:18 PM
Jul 2021

the filibuster.

Manchin has consistently supported working within current rules to advance President Biden’s agenda, just as he’s prepared to advance a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions as soon as this week.

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
26. No. Any Republicans present, even Collins or Murkowski, will never vote to allow us to pass
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 06:58 PM
Jul 2021

they disagree with, such as the multiple voter rights bills. They will invoke the filibuster and we are back to square one.

IF there are no Rethugs at all, then Manchin and/or Sinema (or other Dems, if they are against a bill) will suggest an absence of a quorum to block a vote.

A perfect example is the For the People Act, which Manchin opposes.

Manchin says he will vote against Democrats’ sweeping voting rights bill

If it was brought to the floor for a vote, he will use the quorum requirement to block it, as if he did not, it would pass on a voice vote. If he waited until after a voice vote passed it, he could not request a roll call vote unless he had a total of 11 other Dems request a rollcall vote then. A rollcall vote automatically triggers a quorum call (which would block it as we would not have a quorum) BUT, again he would, at that point, need a total of 11 votes (as I explained in a reply to another roster above) to request that roll call vote, and he knows he would not have those 11 Dem votes (remember there are no Rethugs in this scenario) to block the For The People Act.

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
28. It is all hypothetical and unlikely anyway, but for pointing out simple examples where
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 07:13 PM
Jul 2021

Manchin and/or Sinema (or any other Dem who disagreed with a bill) would use a quorum call to block bills they oppose (IF there were zero Rethugs present), I am being falsely accused of attacking them by another poster. I just gave you a perfect example of a key bill (the For The People Act, which Manchin will vote against) where it would happen. It is not an attack, it is a statement of fact.

Bettie

(16,071 posts)
29. It's true...and pointing out that two of our own
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 07:19 PM
Jul 2021

will do their best to scuttle voting rights is a very sad statement of fact, not an attack.

I have been trying so hard to be less "doom and gloomy", but it gets harder every day to have hope.

Plus, Nasty Lindsay won't leave in any case. He lives for being snotty and ugly to everyone.

I'm starting to think the allegiance to the filibuster is more about being able to never have to vote on anything, thus, you can both support it and not have voted for it. Playing both sides eternally, they win, The People lose.

Celerity

(43,107 posts)
30. I will add a positive thing. IF all the Rethugs leave, and IF it's a bill all 50 Dems agree with, it
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 07:27 PM
Jul 2021

probably would pass via unanimous consent. I cannot see anyone scuppering it via a quorum call at that point. If anyone did, then it would truly expose that Senator as a hostile player (as why would they block a bill they say they support?).

I agree on the filibuster argument you make as well, granted only for some, not all of our Senators.

I'm starting to think the allegiance to the filibuster is more about being able to never have to vote on anything, thus, you can both support it and not have voted for it. Playing both sides eternally, they win, The People lose.

captain queeg

(10,094 posts)
3. Don't let the door hit you in the ass
Mon Jul 19, 2021, 11:20 PM
Jul 2021

Also, don't come back

One last thing; he looks like shit. I guess when you lose your soul it affects your appearance.

MurrayDelph

(5,292 posts)
20. I don't know why people always say that
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 12:43 PM
Jul 2021

If anyone deserves the door hitting him in the ass, repeatedly and at speed, it's Lindsey.

RockRaven

(14,899 posts)
5. He's too ineffective or weak to actually convince *every single* Repuke to stay away, so there's
Mon Jul 19, 2021, 11:23 PM
Jul 2021

really no chance of him actually achieving the loss of a quorum. Senate GrOPers have each got their own personal agendas, and some might be in line with this stunt, but others are not.

As such, please proceed, Senator. GTFOH and you make Madame Vice President's job easier because she won't have to waste time breaking ties on party-line votes while you are gone.

GoCubsGo

(32,074 posts)
13. It won't happen.
Tue Jul 20, 2021, 08:52 AM
Jul 2021

I can't see any of the GOP leaving town after all the name-calling and threats their counterparts made against the Texas Democrats. They're all hat and no cattle, especially this steaming pile of shit and puke that is my so-called Senator. They do love their performance art, though.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Graham still talking abou...