General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGraham still talking about leaving town. Do it, you dickmite.
Link to tweet
He's pretending that the same rules in Texas applies to the US Senate
drray23
(7,616 posts)The US senate needs at least 51 senators present for quorum. If all 50 republicans leave we would not have quorum.
Nevilledog
(51,006 posts)drray23
(7,616 posts)but technically there is a quorum.
tritsofme
(17,370 posts)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.
lindysalsagal
(20,581 posts)Celerity
(43,107 posts)tritsofme
(17,370 posts)Celerity
(43,107 posts)tritsofme
(17,370 posts)It is just an attack on Democratic senators, whose only source is your imagination.
Celerity
(43,107 posts)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)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 cant help yourself from launching baseless attacks on Democratic senators.
Celerity
(43,107 posts)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)Its 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. Theres no doubt that implication is a direct attack upon them.
Celerity
(43,107 posts)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
Sinema:
I want to restore the 60-vote threshold for all elements of the Senates 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)the filibuster.
Manchin has consistently supported working within current rules to advance President Bidens agenda, just as hes prepared to advance a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions as soon as this week.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Fullduplexxx
(7,844 posts)drray23
(7,616 posts)Bettie
(16,071 posts)hopefully, they aren't all assholes.
Celerity
(43,107 posts)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.
Bettie
(16,071 posts)trying to be hopeful here!
Celerity
(43,107 posts)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)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)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.
captain queeg
(10,094 posts)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)If anyone deserves the door hitting him in the ass, repeatedly and at speed, it's Lindsey.
captain queeg
(10,094 posts)RockRaven
(14,899 posts)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.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Vinca
(50,236 posts)GoCubsGo
(32,074 posts)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.