middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Note: This thread is NOT about the merits of the bill itself, but rather, how it can be "on life support," because the Senate lost one of its Democrats in Massachusetts, essentially making the Senate only 59% Democrat.
However, isn't that still a majority? And, now that it's passed the senate and on to the inter-house committee, all they need is fifty votes, and then, Joe Biden can step in and break the tie, but they have 59; you only need 51 to not even need Biden's help.
Now, if they're worried about a Republican filibuster, who said they had to give anyone the chance to filibuster it? Both the Vice President, and the President Pro-Tempore, are Democrat. If the Senate wants to debate, first, on the merits of the new portion of the bill, Biden, or the President Pro-Tempore (I forget his name), can simply not call on a Republican to speak. While a Senator is entitled to not be interrupted while filibustering, there's no rule that entitles any one Senator to the right to be called to speak at all.
Also, the applicable chairman of the Senate at that very moment can easily choose to call on no one to speak, and simply cut straight to the vote. At that point, the bill should be in like flynn.
Even without a filibuster-proof majority, both houses of Congress need only a simple majority (or, even, a 50-50 split in the Senate, with the Vice President breaking the tie) to get all their work done. If both houses are majority one party, party-line votes can be done with ease, and by nature of that house having a majority of that party, their chairman (whether Speaker, Preisdent Pro-Tempore, or Vice President), can EASILY censor opposition without any real consequences.
So, why are the Democrats so concerned about loosing ONE Senate seat, and no House seats, when they still clearly have controlling interest?
However, isn't that still a majority? And, now that it's passed the senate and on to the inter-house committee, all they need is fifty votes, and then, Joe Biden can step in and break the tie, but they have 59; you only need 51 to not even need Biden's help.
Now, if they're worried about a Republican filibuster, who said they had to give anyone the chance to filibuster it? Both the Vice President, and the President Pro-Tempore, are Democrat. If the Senate wants to debate, first, on the merits of the new portion of the bill, Biden, or the President Pro-Tempore (I forget his name), can simply not call on a Republican to speak. While a Senator is entitled to not be interrupted while filibustering, there's no rule that entitles any one Senator to the right to be called to speak at all.
Also, the applicable chairman of the Senate at that very moment can easily choose to call on no one to speak, and simply cut straight to the vote. At that point, the bill should be in like flynn.
Even without a filibuster-proof majority, both houses of Congress need only a simple majority (or, even, a 50-50 split in the Senate, with the Vice President breaking the tie) to get all their work done. If both houses are majority one party, party-line votes can be done with ease, and by nature of that house having a majority of that party, their chairman (whether Speaker, Preisdent Pro-Tempore, or Vice President), can EASILY censor opposition without any real consequences.
So, why are the Democrats so concerned about loosing ONE Senate seat, and no House seats, when they still clearly have controlling interest?
