Vanceas should be Vance

X ^ | 11/08/24 | Charlie Kirk & Glen Beck

[Eli Kopter]

“As always, however, one needs to ask the question of what would happen if ‘our’ party”. You bring up some great points Phyler, but if the Democrats were in control, could the Majority leader be any worse or more partisan than Chuck Schumer?

[boycott]

I just hope the republicans don’t split the vote between Scott and Vance to where it could possibly allow Thune or Cornyn to get in.

I hope they have a good plan in order.

[Georgia Girl 2]

That’s not going to happen. Its going to be John Thune.

[Bookshelf]

Alexander Hamilton never served in the Senate. Don’t mix apples and oranges.

[Phlyer]

. . . could the Majority leader be any worse or more partisan than Chuck Schumer?

No. But the issue is whether having a majority leader who is from the majority (in the Sentate) party is better or worse than having a strong Vice-President actually running the Senate. Would it amount to giving the White House control not only of the Executive Branch but also of the Senate?

My own bias is as a Constitutionalist. Since the Constitution establishes the Vice President as President of the Senate, I think that's the way things should be run. But it does have its own hazards.

A wild card in this is the filibuster. We haven't had 60 Senators from one party for a long time, so regardless of whether there is a majority-party (in the Senate) leader or the Vice President, as long as there is a filibuster there are safeguards against having the Executive Branch controlling the Senate (if the Vice President truly presides). Of course, the Dhimms want to do away with the filibuster altogether. In that case, the Majority Leader or the Vice President could have the same sort of power the Speaker of the House has, and we saw with Nancy Pelosi how that can be abused.