Posted on 11/23/2024 6:09:49 AM PST by MtnClimber
When the Democratic convention took place in August, with new nominee Kamala Harris rising in the polls, Democrats were giddy with a sense of impending victory. In Chicago for the convention, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer of New York visited with party officials and reporters to outline his plans for a glorious new age in Washington with Democrats in control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.
Schumer’s top priority in the new Harris administration would have been to eliminate the legislative filibuster that has long protected minority rights in the Senate. That way, even if the Senate were tied between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, those 50 Democrats, with the tie breaking vote of Vice President Tim Walz, could enact far-reaching legislation without any input at all from Republicans. Washington would have true one-party rule, and the minority party would have no say in things whatsoever.
Democrats had tried to kill the filibuster in 2022, when Democrats had just 50 votes, but fell two votes short when two independent-minded Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, refused to go along with the party. In 2022, Democrats picked up another seat, giving them a 51-49 majority in the Senate. That put them one vote closer to killing the filibuster.
Schumer believed 2024 would be the year Democrats could finally erase any Republican power in the Senate. Manchin and Sinema were both leaving the Senate, Schumer explained at his talk in Chicago. Manchin’s seat would be won by a Republican, so it still would be unavailable for Democrats. But Sinema’s seat would be won by Democrat Ruben Gallego, Schumer said, and Gallego would go along with the party on the filibuster. That would give Democrats the 50 votes they needed, provided there was a Vice President Walz to break the tie.
“We got it up to 48, but, of course, Sinema and Manchin voted no; that’s why we couldn’t change the rules,” Schumer explained. “Well, they’re both gone. Ruben Gallego is for it, and we have 51. So even losing Manchin, we still have 50.” And if there were 50 Democrats, and given his confidence that there would be a Vice President Walz, Schumer would be preparing at this moment to destroy the filibuster and prepare a wave of legislation so objectionable to moderates and conservatives that they would be passed on Democratic votes alone.
But it didn’t happen. The Democrats lost votes in the election. Republicans will have a 53-to-47 majority in the Senate. Schumer is headed toward being the minority leader. And there will be no Vice President Walz. None of Schumer’s dreams came true.
So this week, Schumer went to the well of the Senate and addressed some remarks to his Republican colleagues. “Another closely contested election now comes to an end,” he said. “To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith: Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power. So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation.”
The short version of that is: Please don’t do to us what we were going to do to you. Schumer is obviously concerned that Republicans might embrace a scheme to eliminate the filibuster and pass all sorts of consequential legislation with no Democratic input at all. That wouldn’t be bipartisan! Fortunately for Schumer, Republicans have been more principled than Democrats when it comes to the legislative filibuster, and to the filibuster in general. Republicans realize that even though they will have the majority for the next two years, they might be back in the minority at any time after that. So Schumer will not get it good and hard the way he planned to give it to Republicans.
The filibuster has always been the subject of hypocrisy in the Senate. The late Sen. Fred Thompson used to explain it this way: When we are in the majority, the filibuster is bad. When we are in the minority, the filibuster is good. It’s an issue that some lawmakers hop back and forth on, depending on whether their party is in the majority or minority.
But Schumer’s brand of hypocrisy is particularly egregious. He was not advocating whether this or that individual bill should or should not be filibustered. That goes on all the time. He was advocating changing Senate rules, on an entirely partisan basis, to eliminate the minority party’s ability to demand a higher standard of approval for controversial legislation. And then, when Schumer’s party loses, he instantly turns around and becomes Mr. Bipartisanship. For that, there should be a word that goes beyond mere hypocrisy.
What else would you expect from Schumer except hypocricy?
Schumer is an authentic POS.
That is an excellent headline.
Loser Schumer went to the well of the Senate and addressed his winning Republican colleagues.
“Another closely contested? election now comes to an end. I offer a word of caution in good faith: Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation.”
Yoo hoo Schumer-—a reminder of Democrats’ 2024 debt-ridden $1 billion collapse.
<><>Dems lost the White House, the House, the Senate and the popular vote.
<><>Dems were rejected coast to coast,
<><>Republicans won majorities in 31 out of 50 states
<><>Trump’s big victories: Wy (72.3%), WVa (70.1%), N/Dk (67.5%), Idaho (66.8%), Ok (66.1%).
<><>Ohio Sen Sherrod Brown, working-class champion, toppled by a Republican
<><>Biden’s party is increasingly dominated by elite voters.
<><>Pa Democrat Sen Bob Casey lost, but refuses to concede,
<><>Trump Won More Black Voters Than Any Republican in 48 Years—
<><>Trump won 101 Chicago precincts-—home to high numbers of city workers,
<><>Trump won 22% of the Chicago vote-—increased from 2020’s 16%
<><>Pelosi’s own deep-blue S/Francisco base saw a 7-point swing to Trump.
<><>President Trump won 312 of 538 electoral votes, including all seven battleground states.
<><>Georgia Republicans create a private-school vouchers program.
<><>Republican flips CA seat (district has 14 pt Dem registration advantage)
<><>Republicans control the Georgia General Assembly.
<><>Trump-backed Republican takes Alaska’s only House seat.
<><>NYC Asian precincts saw a 31% rightward shift to Trump.
<><>Pubbies popular vote lead is 4 million (1.4 mill by “Dem count”)
<><>late votes increase lead for Ca Republican House incumbent
<><>pitching for Harris, Obama is wrong about Trump, a-g-a-i-n.
<><>issues Trump ran on polled landslide majorities.
No kidding.
Six ways from Sunday, Chuckie.
Oh don’t worry they won’t, they are on the same team you are Chuck.
Enven if you keep the filibuster, force it to be real. Make them hold the floor and actually talk for 24 hours per day. No checking off ”filibuster” on a reply postcard and have the Republicans meekly accept it without even showing up on the floor.
In my daily life, liberals follow this same childish pattern. They can dish it but think it is unfair to receive it.
I see that from leftists too. They tend to be very narcissistic.
“So this week, Schumer went to the well of the Senate and addressed some remarks to his Republican colleagues. “Another closely contested election now comes to an end,” he said. “To my Republican colleagues, I offer a word of caution in good faith: Take care not to misread the will of the people, and do not abandon the need for bipartisanship. After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power. So, instead of going to the extremes, I remind my colleagues that this body is most effective when it’s bipartisan. If we want the next four years in the Senate to be as productive as the last four, the only way that will happen is through bipartisan cooperation.”
If we had a GOP Congress with any guts, they would make this sorry scumbag miseralble for the next two years. That won’t happen because they are mostly cowards.
“Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer of New York visited with party officials and reporters to outline his plans for a glorious new age in Washington with Democrats in control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives.”
I decided to take a look to see how the ‘reigns of power’ have shifted through the years and what we might expect with President Trump’s second go-round. Looks like we need to add SCOTUS to the mix for good measure. WINNING! :)
“Between 2001 and 2007, Republicans controlled at certain points all three branches while President George W. Bush occupied the White House. GOP control was interrupted between 2001 and 2003, as the Senate majority flipped to the Democrats as one senator switched his party affiliation, one senator died, and when the 2002 midterm elections shifted control of the upper chamber.
From 1961-1969, Democrats controlled all three branches during the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
The 83rd Congress (1953-1955), during the presidency of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, saw the deaths of nine senators and the resignation of one. These changes shifted the balance of power in the Senate with each new replacement, according to the U.S. Senate website. When Republicans held the Senate majority during those years, all branches of government were under Republican-control, as the party also held the White House and Supreme Court.
From 1937-1945, Democrats controlled all three branches of government during the administrations of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.
And from 1927-1933, Republicans controlled all three branches of the government when Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover occupied the White House.”
Republicans must keep the filibuster. However, Rs should bring to the floor legislation to abolish the filibuster and force democrats to give impassioned speeches about the merits of preserving the filibuster.
That would be entertaining to watch.
“That won’t happen because they are mostly cowards.”
Worse, they are downright traitors. Look at how much “help” they gave Trump during his first term. How soon we forget that they have already set an example of their absolute lack of loyalty to we the people.
The filibuster has always been the subject of hypocrisy in the Senate. The late Sen. Fred Thompson used to explain it this way: When we are in the majority, the filibuster is bad. When we are in the minority, the filibuster is good. It’s an issue that some lawmakers hop back and forth on, depending on whether their party is in the majority or minority.
But Schumer’s brand of hypocrisy is particularly egregious. He was not advocating whether this or that individual bill should or should not be filibustered. That goes on all the time. He was advocating changing Senate rules, on an entirely partisan basis, to eliminate the minority party’s ability to demand a higher standard of approval for controversial legislation. And then, when Schumer’s party loses, he instantly turns around and becomes Mr. Bipartisanship. For that, there should be a word that goes beyond mere hypocrisy.
A filibuster is a tactic used in the United States Senate to delay or block a vote on a measure by preventing debate on it from ending.[1]: 2 The Senate’s rules place few restrictions on debate; in general, if no other senator is speaking, a senator who seeks recognition is entitled to speak for as long as they wish.[2]: 716 Only when debate concludes (whether naturally or using cloture) can the measure be put to a vote.
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the United States Senate allows the Senate to vote to limit debate by invoking cloture on the pending question. In most cases, however, this requires a majority of three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there is no more than one vacancy),[3]: 15–17 so a minority of senators can block a measure, even if it has the support of a simple majority.
Throughout the Senate’s history, senators have frequently made efforts to curtail the use of the Senate’s filibuster. Notably, in 2013 and 2017, the Senate used the nuclear option to set a series of precedents that reduced the threshold for cloture on nominations to a simple majority.[5]: 3 Since then, nominations can be confirmed without the support of 60 senators, though they may nonetheless be delayed by a filibuster. Moreover, a number of rulemaking statutes have been enacted to limit the scope of the filibuster by imposing an automatic time limit on Senate debate of certain questions.[4] These include the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (which created the budget reconciliation process), the Congressional Review Act and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. Since debate on such measures ends without cloture being invoked, they are not subject to the 60-vote threshold.
1) It looks like some limitations of filibuster are in place.
2) If we reduce the power of federal govt, back to the constitution, It becomes lesser value. We do not want an efficient fast acting govt for the most part. There are other checks and balances (state government, courts, 2nd) Filibuster is not needed for checks and balances?
3) Filibuster is not part of Roberts Rules of Order, which I think is a good historical basis of governing meetings.
4) Would we put up with a filibuster in our local or state government?
5) While filibustering, it does give them less time to do other real damage?
6) so in summary, I am agin’ it. It has more negs than pros? There are better checks and balances. Take the power away from the fed and move back to states. I refer again to the Uniform Commercial Code as a proper way of doing it.
Schumer has to go. He’s slime.
Great summation! The American people didn’t vote for Schumer and his whacked-out party to give us more crime, corruption, and craziness. He’s in NO position to be lecturing anybody. So SHUT UP, already, Schumer!
Amen.
Quite true. But what do you call the Republicans who will accommodate his request? And you know that they will.
NO....Shumer is PURE EVIL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.