VP Harris: OVERRULE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN

[WHITT]

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected Democrats' third attempt to include immigration provisions in their sweeping social spending plan, dealing a potentially fatal blow to the party's efforts to protect millions of undocumented immigrants for the first time in years.

The plan, included in the House version of the bill that passed Nov. 19, would have drawn on "parole in place" authorities to allow an estimated 6.5 million immigrants who have lived in the U.S. since January 2011 to apply for five-year work permits and relief from deportation.

According to a copy of the guidance obtained by CQ Roll Call, MacDonough reasoned that Democrats' proposal included policy changes that would outweigh their budgetary impact, violating the so-called "Byrd rule" for the same reasons as two prior proposals Democrats submitted that would have put millions on a path to citizenship.

"These are substantial policy changes with lasting effects just like those we previously considered and outweigh the budgetary impact," she said.

BULLSHIT.

MacDonough previously ruled the Repubs could use reconciliation to try to take healthcare away from 32 million Americans by repealing the ACA, which would have been a FAR more substantial policy change with lasting effects, than the 6.5 million immigrants.

Vice-President Harris needs to overrule the Parliamentarian.

Actually, the Parliamentarian needs to be fired, but thats another matter for a future writeup.

[madville]

1. The parliamentarian enforces the Senate rules

That the majority passed at the start of the term. All they have to do is change the rules, right? They can do that at any time with 51 votes…..

[WHITT]

4. No Votes Required

VP has the power.

[madville]

6. They still need 51 votes to pass the bill

Even if the VP overrules the parliamentarian. Manchin going to be onboard with voting for a bill that goes against the parliamentarian’s ruling?

[WHITT]

10. That's An Entirely Different Matter

and we can cross that bridge when we get to it, and they can make the same argument I did.

[Mr.Bill]

2. Unless there's more to the story, Link?

That headline is misleading.

VP Harris: Overrule the Pariamentarian, is not the sama as

Vice President Harris needs to overrule the Parliamentarian

[WHITT]

7. It's A Proclamation

Overrule the Parliamentarian!

How is that "misleading"?

[Mr.Bill]

18. A colon after someone's name

means they spoke what comes after the colon. Anyway, is there a link to the story? It's a subject that interests me and I would like to read more.

[WHITT]

25. Sez Who?

1) My colon, my proclamation.

2) What "story"? It's a fact.

[Polybius]

29. Says everyone

But you.

[WHITT]

35. HAH HAH HAH

Apparently you don't even know the definition of a proclamation.

[Polybius]

38. Yeah ok

The only one who understands is you.

[WHITT]

40. Good Grief

[Polybius]

41. It's true

People are still replying that you confused them.

[WHITT]

43. THEY Confused Them

[Polybius]

46. If I wrote something that was confusing lots of people, I'd edit it

Even if I couldn't understand what was causing the confusion.

[CrackityJones75]

31. It is misleading.

I took the headline as a quote and then looked for a quotation.

But then again I figured it out.

[WHITT]

37. So

Did you see any quotes in the title?

[Polybius]

39. See, everyone is against it

Edit it, you lost this one.

[WHITT]

42. There's A Reason!

[Polybius]

44. Yes there it

The title was confusing. Don't take it personal, this is nothing against you. I'm sure you're a great person, but it was hard to understand.

[CrackityJones75]

45. I mean yer probably right.

I know when everyone else is saying that I am wrong it usually means I am right.

[Polybius]

23. You said it wrong and confused everyone, there's no way around it

Here's what the OP title should have said:

Hey VP Harris, please overrule the parliamentarian!

At the very least, trade in your colon for a comma.

[WHITT]

26. Sorry, Didn't Say It Wrong

It's a proclamation.

[Polybius]

28. Bullshit

Read the replies. No one understood you. Sometimes it's ok to apologize. Pride sucks.

[WHITT]

32. You Got That Part Right

It's bullshit.

What part of it's a proclamation are you not comprehending?

[Polybius]

34. That you messed up the title

It's ok, mistakes happen.

[Celerity]

3. Manchin and Sinema will not vote for anything that violates one of their sacred

texts, aka The Byrd Rule.

Manchin would literally lose his shit live on national telly.

The entire Senate itself, by its very nature, plus how it has morphed as well, is one of the biggest long wave deep flaws in the US Constitutionally mandated form of governance.

[WHITT]

5. No Votes Required

VP has the power.

[MichMan]

8. Why hasn't she already done it then?

[madville]

16. It's a risky maneuver for Harris

Does she want to expend that much political capital on something that will ultimately fail without Manchin and Simena behind it? Seems pointless.

[madville]

9. Are you claiming the VP has the power to pass Senate legislation

Without a vote on said legislation by the chamber?

[WHITT]

12. Not That Know Of

I merely posted that the VP can overrule the Parliamentarian.

[Celerity]

11. You misunderstand my point. Obviously Harris can overrule, BUT Manchinema

will instantly say 'Remove that part (illegitimate part it will be framed as I am sure) that was just kept in via the (wrongful overruling it will be called) overruling of the Parliamentarian by the VP or we will never vote for the Bill.

[WHITT]

14. That's A Separate Issue

they would have to try and defend the optics of.

[Celerity]

19. No it is not a separate issue at all. It is integral to the decision-making process as to whether

you will overrule or not. It (Manchinema refusing to allow that overruled part in any bill they will vote for) also is not the only barrier that would possible prevent her overruling the Parliamentarian either.

You would never overrule IF you knew that the very act of overruling kills the bill. VP Harris in not some amateur hour politician.

[WHITT]

27. That Would Be Very Bad Optics

But, for now, it's moot,

[Celerity]

36. Manchin doesn't give a rat's red arse about optics, much to the detriment of our party & the nation.

[FBaggins]

13. Untrue

The VP has no “power” beyond breaking tie votes.

She can choose to ignore the parliamentarian, but she can’t make it stick without 51 votes behind her… and there are 48 at most.

[WHITT]

15. False

[FBaggins]

17. Nope

The parliamentarian doesn’t “rule”… she advises the chair. The chair can make a preliminary “ruling”, but any single senator can object and put the matter before the full senate. The Senate “rules”.

And there are at least 52 votes against her. Meaning she had no power in this matter at all - beyond embarrassing herself and the party.

[PCIntern]

21. LITERALLY "lose his shit"??!!?!

Now there’s some teevee!!

[Celerity]

24. lol

[Polybius]

20. Please provide a link

I searched and could not find anything about Harris saying to overrule her.

[PTWB]

22. Do you have a link to where VP Harris said that?

I haven’t found any sources to indicate she said what you claim.

[Polybius]

30. She didn't say it

The OP refuses to admit that the grammar in the title was royally messed up.

[CrackityJones75]

33. OP made a confusing title.

Won’t change it. Lame.