From NewsFlector: How VP Harris can sideline MoscowMitch.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

Even if the Democrats don’t win control of the Senate, there is a way to strip Mitch McConnell of his power for good: priority recognition.

According to Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution, the Vice President is also the President of the Senate. The Majority Leader is not a position that exists anywhere in the Constitution. The reason that the Majority Leader has near-dictatorial powers to control floor votes is because of a tradition that dates back to 1937. The tradition is that the Vice President gives the floor leaders priority recognition. Most notably, this is not a rule in the Senate.

As President of the Senate, Vice President Harris could give any senator priority recognition. That senator could then decide on all legislation that is brought before the entire Senate. Even with a minority in the Senate, Vice President Harris could simply give Chuck Schumer priority recognition. He could decide what is voted on and what isn’t.

This would change everything. Without Mitch McConnell to hide behind, the moderate Republican Senators would be forced to vote down every Cabinet member, bill, resolution, everything that Harris would want done. Without McConnell, anything even remotely popular with at least two senators would pass. Including getting a cabinet assembled.

I see some debate as to what the Senate rules do and do not permit. I encourage everyone to read this article on the actual written rules and why the Majority Leader is so powerful today. It should be noted, however, unlike the House of Representatives, a large part of the Senate rules is tradition. As Mitch McConnell will gladly tell you, tradition is not written rule.

Also, This wouldn’t be the first time Schumer has done something like this. And yes, while there’s the possibility of rule changes, they cannot change the Constitution. At the end of the day, Madame Vice President Harris is President of the Senate. Period. Not Mitch McConnell.

Short article; nothing more at the link. The original article has live links embedded in it and they lead to further interesting discussions.




https://newsflector.com/how-vp-harris-can-sideline-moscow-mitch/?fbclid=IwAR3gHll0PgOxVhUfrZXzuA_kRP_nj_T2Ht3HSd9J4DzwoNUsE_awVYOCqhA

[tritsofme]

1. There is no magic wand to make Mitch go away. We just have to win Georgia.

There is not just the “possibility” of rule changes as a reaction to such a strategy, it would be an absolute certainty, that would be clear before it was ever actually considered in any serious fashion.

[jimfields33]

2. There is no way this will happen

The senate would shut down. Bills would come to the floor but every one would be voted down.

[BComplex]

4. Not necessarily. There are a bunch of bills that some republicans would not want to have their name

associated with a down vote.

I think this would be a great idea!

[jimfields33]

5. If we got the messaging correct, it could work

It’s a huge risk.

[tritsofme]

7. No, they just wouldn't play along. Everything would be blocked in protest, until they manage

to change the rules, which would not take very long. This is a fun fantasy, not a viable option.

[aka-chmeee]

43. And this differs from the republican's intended actions in what detail? nt

[tritsofme]

44. If you want to advocate for a stunt that won't accomplish anything

Then at least be clear.

[paleotn]

8. And several House bills McConnell pocketed....

have support from a number of Republicans.

[Kingofalldems]

56. Nope.

[NCjack]

3. Good. Big solution to MoscowMitch.

[onenote]

6. This has been brought up before and it isn't going to work.

First problem: Joe Biden spent 36 years in the Senate and 8 years as "President" of the Senate. He is not going to change the way things have been done.

Second problem: Neither Harris nor Biden will want her spending all her time presiding over the Senate.

Third problem: The Constitution states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...."

The presiding officer of the Senate doesn't make rules -- he/she only presides over the application of those rules. The Senate can, and if pushed to do so, pass all kinds of rules that would effectively limit what the presiding officer can do, such as a rule specifying that the presiding officer must recognize the majority leader. And that would be the end of it.

[Rstrstx]

21. Agreed, that stunt will last for a few minutes..

...before the Repubs go and change the Senate rules. She would probably have one shot at doing something like that before it gets voted out of existence.

Having said that, if you could get 2 Rs onboard (assuming we don’t capture both GA seats) she might be able to get a rule approved requiring the person in charge of running the Senate first be approved by a majority of the entire Senate. While that would strip McConnell of most of his powers (unless he could get 51 votes - doubtful), the downside would be that it could come back to bite us in the rear should we retake control of the Senate in ‘22.

[onenote]

27. We're not getting two R's on board to shaft their majority leader.

Not in this life or any other.

[Warpy]

9. Any way they can neuter McConnell is a good way

and doing this while the House investigates his relationship with Deripaska and the dirty deals he's done to benefit his wife while refusing to do the real work of the country is a good thing. Just expect the GOP to pull the same shit when they get back in.

McConnell needs to be cut off at the knees if this country is to progress, at all.

[EndlessWire]

26. I agree. n/t

[bucolic_frolic]

10. "As Mitch McConnell will gladly tell you, tradition is not written rule." Merrick Garland, anyone?

Yes, Republicans will be vitriolic. The first female VP, a rapid riser with all her other attributes. And she's going to jumble Senate traditions, and put things on an even keel? Yes, THAT will be popular!

[patphil]

11. The only problem we have is that, until January, Mitch McConnell still runs the Senate.

A rules change permanently giving the Senate Majority leader priority recognition could be put forth, voted on, and be made effective in a single day.
If this happens, the only way the Biden/Harris administration could get anything done for the next 2 years would be if the Democrats won both seats in Georgia.

I think the prospects of that are less than 50/50.

[scipan]

23. Not an expert on Senate rules but I think

all rules expire at the end of the term.

[tritsofme]

25. No, the Senate is a continuing body, they do not re-adopt their rules

at the beginning of each session.

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. But the rules can be changed at any time with a majority vote. Nt

[tritsofme]

38. It requires 67 votes to change the Standing Rules of the Senate

A simple majority can invoke the “nuclear option”
and set a new precedent that effectively changes the rules as was done in 2013 and 2017, but it is a distinction.

[onenote]

59. And one that would be invoked in a heartbeat if Biden and Harris tried this harebrained idea.

[Foolacious]

46. How could the Senate enact a rule change that violates the Constitution?

The Vice-President has constitutional authority to give priority recognition.

[former9thward]

47. You are ignoring another provision of the Constitution.

The one that says the Senate makes its own rules.

[Foolacious]

49. So the Constitution says both that...

the Senate makes its own rules and the VP has certain authorities over the Senate. I would think that the explicit authorities would override the general authorities when there is conflict. Isn't that how it usually works? Essentially, "unless otherwise specified" is implicit in general rules. No?

[former9thward]

62. There is nothing in my copy of the Constitution that says that the VP

"has certain authorities" over the Senate. Her only authority comes from Senate rules which can be changed at any time.

[Foolacious]

65. Thanks for that clarification.

A lot of us have been under that misapprehension and it has gone unchallenged, but you're correct; upon review, there's nothing in the Constitution about this kind of vice-presidential power.

[tritsofme]

52. The Constitution does not give the VP authority for priority recognition.

Senate rules do, and those rules can be changed or interpreted differently.

[TomDaisy]

12. I think we should do this. And even if we don't, it's a major chip to be played in exchange for

a lot of things.

Hey Mitch, Kamala is going to run the show UNLESS you give the HEROES Act an up or down vote.....

Hey Mitch, Kamala is going to run the show UNLESS you FIX the JOHN LEWIS Voting Rights Act...

Hey Mitch, Kamala is going to run the show UNLESS you approve Biden's slate of federal judges...

[housecat]

17. Downside

What's the downside? Is there any risk?

[tritsofme]

33. Except it's not a major chip. It's some guy's internet fantasy.

The real solution is to win in Georgia.

[sandensea]

13. If they try this, Bitchy Mitchy will change the Senate rules faster than you can say PING MAY

It is what it is.

[3825-87867]

20. Really?

So you're saying the Senate can make rules that supersede the Constitution?
I'm confused.

[sandensea]

22. You're right in theory - but just try suing him

[3825-87867]

24. Any port in a storm!

We need to try whatever works.

[sandensea]

31. May it work!

[onenote]

28. The Constitution expressly gives the Senate the right to set its own rules.

So, any rules the R's jam through will dictate how the presiding officer "presides."

[tritsofme]

29. The Constitution doesn't define the role of the Senate's presiding officer.

Instead it gives each chamber the exclusive power to set the rules for their own proceedings.

[dware]

32. Really?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Senate can't set their own rules?

[housecat]

14. Executive order?

Is there a limit on the number of executive orders Biden can make in, say, an hour?

[Retrograde]

16. If he can sign two a minute....

[housecat]

19. Hand stamp

What if he hand stamps them as fast as he can.

[global1]

15. You Know That If The Shoe Were On The Other Foot....

the Repugs would do this. They would come up with some way to obtain control.

[tritsofme]

35. No they wouldn't. Because this is not actually a thing.

[global1]

45. They Would Make It A Thing....

Look what they did to Obama and Merrick Garland. They make their own rules and break them when it serves their purpose.

[tritsofme]

55. Cheney presided over 51-49 Democratic Senate majorities twice.

And this didn’t happen, and wasn’t contemplated, except perhaps by some kooks, similar to today I suppose.

[global1]

57. The Party Of Trump (Now) Is Not The Party Of....

Cheney/Bush (Then).

[tritsofme]

58. That doesn't make this goofy plan any more viable.

[GoCubsGo]

18. The "Unpresidented Podcast" guys discussed that in their most recent podcast.

https://sexyliberal.com/unpresidented-creating-change-that-empowers-the-resistance/

It makes me wonder why they didn't take advantage of this during the Obama administration...

[onenote]

30. Because, for the reasons explained in various posts, it wouldn't work.

[Fiendish Thingy]

34. Unless the filibuster is eliminated, floor votes can be blocked even with Harris in charge. Nt

[dalton99a]

37. Kick

[Buckeyeblue]

39. If it was so simple why didn't Obama have Biden do this to get Merrick Garland a vote

My guess is there would have to be some sort of Senate rules changed for this to work.

[dware]

40. Exactly!!!!! nt

[JudyM]

48. Did Obama play hardball?

Do we need to now? No question in my mind.

[Buckeyeblue]

50. If Obama was going to play hardball I thought this would have been the one

I remember they talked about doing a recess appointment. But that didn't seem tenable. If he could have done something this simple, it seems absurd that he wouldn't have tried.

[tritsofme]

53. Obama didn't "try" because the idea is absurd.

He was constitutional law professor, he wouldn’t need advisors to know this is nonsense.

[Buckeyeblue]

61. Right. That was my point. There was nothing he could do.

[JudyM]

54. Yes, *if* he was going to.

[Loki Liesmith]

41. A lot of magical thinking in this thread.

lol

[TryLogic]

42. Something must be done about Moscow Mitch, the grim reaper, and suspected (by me) kkk bastard.

[Wednesdays]

51. ...

[onenote]

60. +1

[Blue Owl]

63. C'mon Georgia!

[Kid Berwyn]

64. Let it be so.

Moscow Mitch the Traitor should not call the shots.