You had a D president and D majorities in the house (39 seat) and the senate (7 seat). Best you could do was Obamacare. If a single guy can neutralize a 7-seat majority, and you can’t take away his power to do that (you could, but you didn’t) then the game is clear. It’s been a controlled opposition scenario for a long time now.
There’s a method of getting rid of the filibuster with a simple majority - the so called “nuclear option” we’ve been hearing about. Perhaps you agree that the public option wasn’t worth it. I don’t. And I claim that was a deliberte choice made by the controlled opposition to protect private capital. They could have passed it, but they didn’t and the story sold that time was bad Joe Lieberman killed it.
It’s literlly called that. For as long as I’ve been following US politics, it hasn’t been a question of whether the filibuster could be removed to pass legislation with 51 votes. Instead the discussions have been around whether something is worth setting the precedent.
So basically a Senator claims that the Senate rules have been violated, the (senate) president disagrees, the senator appeals and a simple majority decides right or wrong.
Given that quite clearly no rules were actually broken, whats to stop State Attorney Generals from suing the US Federal Government to prevent implementation just like they did with countless other things, namely student loan forgiveness?
Given that quite clearly no rules were actually broken
You and I, and 50 state AGs might feel that there have “clearly” been no rule violations, but neither you nor I nor a state AG, nor a federal judge are constitutionally empowered to make that determination.
According to Article I Section 5 Clause 2, the power to “Determine the rules of its proceedings” is granted to… The Senate.
If the Senate says its rules have been broken, the Senate’s rules have been broken.
Lmao, “just ignore the federal judges” you sound like the Trump admin rn.
You realize thousands of federal employees were rehired due to orders from federal judges? You realize the large majority of Biden Era student aid forgiveness was blocked by federal courts?
The student loan forgiveness failed as far as I’m aware because Biden used a previous legislation which didn’t actually allow for this instead of passing new legislation. If you write a law and you do something that the law doesn’t let you do, you may get stopped by the courts. If you however want to do all the things that are needed to establish universal healthcare, you can put them in a bill and pass it with a simple majority in the United States of America. Don’t ask me why it hasn’t happened. I already said what I think.
you can put them in a bill and pass it with a simple majority in the United States of America.
Are you an American? I only ask because this is not as simple as you’re making it out to be and that might be because you’re not familiar with the Congressional arcana. Many Americans aren’t either, of course, but given the context it’d be interesting to know.
Canadian since 2005, inevitably watching USpoli closely. Am likely much more familiar with it than the average American. Same goes for Canadian politics.
The nuclear option is made possible by the principle in Senate procedure that appeals from rulings of the chair on points of order relating to nondebatable questions are themselves nondebatable.
“Points of order” are different than legislation like healthcare.
The use of the nuclear option to abolish the 60-vote threshold for cloture on legislation has been proposed, but not successfully effected.
I don’t see an argument here that says it can’t be used for legislation. The arguments in the article as well as made by politicians have been that it abaolutely can be used. The arguments against the usage not the possibility have been about the effect of losing their own ability to filibuster legislation after that. There are so many examples out there that I get the feeling you just haven’t heard or read about it. Here’s one. And here’s Chucky’s plan from 2022 which got torpedoed by Manchinema. Please read about it because it’s important to know what shit politicians are spinning when they don’t do what you elected them for. I used to believe that the filibuster was some ironclad barrier that required 60 votes or cooperation from the opposition, cause that’s how it’s was spun. I had’t paid enough attention at the time to understand there’s always been an asterisk - can remove the barrier, don’t want to becauae X, Y or Z.
the republican neutered the original bill of "ACA’ and they wernt going to agree with it unless its watered down, plus there were a ton of DINOS at the time too.
You had a D president and D majorities in the house (39 seat) and the senate (7 seat). Best you could do was Obamacare. If a single guy can neutralize a 7-seat majority, and you can’t take away his power to do that (you could, but you didn’t) then the game is clear. It’s been a controlled opposition scenario for a long time now.
Well yeah, 57 isn’t 60, so it couldn’t pass filibuster. They could remove the need for filibuster but that ALSO REQUIRES 60 VOTES.
Ending the filibuster forever requires only 51. Don’t lie on behalf of the people who won’t do it just because you like the results.
There’s a method of getting rid of the filibuster with a simple majority - the so called “nuclear option” we’ve been hearing about. Perhaps you agree that the public option wasn’t worth it. I don’t. And I claim that was a deliberte choice made by the controlled opposition to protect private capital. They could have passed it, but they didn’t and the story sold that time was bad Joe Lieberman killed it.
Whats your magical solution to remove the filibuster with 50 votes and a VP?
It’s literlly called that. For as long as I’ve been following US politics, it hasn’t been a question of whether the filibuster could be removed to pass legislation with 51 votes. Instead the discussions have been around whether something is worth setting the precedent.
So basically a Senator claims that the Senate rules have been violated, the (senate) president disagrees, the senator appeals and a simple majority decides right or wrong.
Given that quite clearly no rules were actually broken, whats to stop State Attorney Generals from suing the US Federal Government to prevent implementation just like they did with countless other things, namely student loan forgiveness?
You and I, and 50 state AGs might feel that there have “clearly” been no rule violations, but neither you nor I nor a state AG, nor a federal judge are constitutionally empowered to make that determination.
According to Article I Section 5 Clause 2, the power to “Determine the rules of its proceedings” is granted to… The Senate.
If the Senate says its rules have been broken, the Senate’s rules have been broken.
Lmao, “just ignore the federal judges” you sound like the Trump admin rn.
You realize thousands of federal employees were rehired due to orders from federal judges? You realize the large majority of Biden Era student aid forgiveness was blocked by federal courts?
You’re not getting it. I didn’t say we should ignore the courts.
When you try to sue, the courts will take one look at Article I and rule that the Senate is responsible for its own rules.
The cases you are talking about did not arise from senate rulemaking procedures. They do not set the precedent you suggest.
The student loan forgiveness failed as far as I’m aware because Biden used a previous legislation which didn’t actually allow for this instead of passing new legislation. If you write a law and you do something that the law doesn’t let you do, you may get stopped by the courts. If you however want to do all the things that are needed to establish universal healthcare, you can put them in a bill and pass it with a simple majority in the United States of America. Don’t ask me why it hasn’t happened. I already said what I think.
Are you an American? I only ask because this is not as simple as you’re making it out to be and that might be because you’re not familiar with the Congressional arcana. Many Americans aren’t either, of course, but given the context it’d be interesting to know.
Canadian since 2005, inevitably watching USpoli closely. Am likely much more familiar with it than the average American. Same goes for Canadian politics.
“Points of order” are different than legislation like healthcare.
I don’t see an argument here that says it can’t be used for legislation. The arguments in the article as well as made by politicians have been that it abaolutely can be used. The arguments against the usage not the possibility have been about the effect of losing their own ability to filibuster legislation after that. There are so many examples out there that I get the feeling you just haven’t heard or read about it. Here’s one. And here’s Chucky’s plan from 2022 which got torpedoed by Manchinema. Please read about it because it’s important to know what shit politicians are spinning when they don’t do what you elected them for. I used to believe that the filibuster was some ironclad barrier that required 60 votes or cooperation from the opposition, cause that’s how it’s was spun. I had’t paid enough attention at the time to understand there’s always been an asterisk - can remove the barrier, don’t want to becauae X, Y or Z.
the republican neutered the original bill of "ACA’ and they wernt going to agree with it unless its watered down, plus there were a ton of DINOS at the time too.
How many republicans agreed to vote for it at the end?
What do you mean they watered it down? It started out as their halfway plan, ie Romneycare.
Then why did the Republicans filibuster Romneycare and then recently froze all of it’s funding? Why did they campaign on removing it, twice?
Because it was implemented by dems and gave things to the poors and minorities.
It’s also why they don’t have a replacement because it was their plan.
So its both leftist anti-elite legislation and also corrupt republican-lite legislation, got it.
In republican eyes yes. But they don’t care about being hypocritical.
For example Romney taking credit for it and saying it’s terrible
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare
Technically the Republicans didn’t even agree with the watered down bill, the one we had to convince to pass via supermajority was Ind Joe Leieberman.