Trump Tweets (Again) About Changing Senate Filibuster Rules
Source: Talking Points Memo
By MATT SHUHAM Published MAY 30, 2017 10:39 AM
The President on Tuesday urged Senate Republicans to change the chambers legislative filibuster rules in order to pass big-ticket agenda items with a simple majority.
Trump argued that Dems would do it, no doubt! In fact, Democrats never exercised that option the last time they were in the Senate majority, from 2007 to 2015.
Link to tweet
While Democrats resorted to the so-called nuclear option in 2013 to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch and judicial nominees except those to the Supreme Court they did not change the rules for legislative filibusters.
In April, Senate Republicans voted to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, confirming Justice Neil Gorsuch shortly thereafter.
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-tweets-again-legislative-filibuster
Initech
(99,926 posts)I'm going to post this in every Trump tweet thread!
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I don't think they will - and if they did, a number of Republicans wouldn't go along.
Everything they did to Obama came under these rules. Passing many of these bills would be assured self-destruction, and possibly Democratic majorities and control for generations! With no protections for soon-to-be the minority party anymore!
alwaysinflux
(149 posts)So frikkin bad.
C_U_L8R
(44,897 posts)...then you can disband that pesky Congress and declare yourself Cheeto for life,
karynnj
(59,476 posts)In 2009 and 2010, they were always at or above 58. At the beginning of 2009, they weakened the stimulus bill to get three Republicans over 60. Had they gone with a simple majority, they would have kept in more infrastructure spending and more money to the states to maintain spending on education and other needs rather than using the same money for tax cuts, which are less efficient in reviving the economy. They could have had a public option in the healthcare bill which would have been a game changer. If not that, they could have included the provision of people from 55 to 64 buying into Medicare - which Joe Lieberman rejected meaning we did not have 60. Not to mention, they would not have had to work so hard on jobs bills, where they won over a small number of Republicans. The Senate had about 55 or so people behind a genuinely bipartisan cap and trade bill for climate change. (Here, a significant number of coal state Democrats were shown as nos -- I suspect that if the bill had a real chance of passing, many of them might have joined -- oddly leading to an over 60 vote BECAUSE only 51 were needed.
However, I think most Democrats understood that major change should require a supermajority of 60 votes. As it is, we passed ACA with 60 votes - AND WERE ATTACKED FOR "CHEATING" and passing it under reconciliation after Brown was elected. In fact, before Brown was elected, the Senate had passed it with 60 votes - the House followed by passing the Senate bill as is - meaning no reconciliation needed -- and the President signed it into law. The House then immediately passed a small "correction" bill where everything was deficit reducing and included an unrelated change to financing of college debt, that passed the Senate under reconciliation with less than 60 votes.
One caution they might take is that they themselves used the argument that it was wrong for the Democrats to ram the ACA through Congress - ignoring that for a year they had hearings and the Senate worked to keep 60 Senators.
Yonnie3
(17,382 posts)Not a usual time for his tweets.
I'll bet someone just explained to the IIC (Ignoramus In Chief) why it might not be so easy to get "his" budget through the Senate.
One would think that Mr. Art of the Deal would understand compromise, counter offers etc. But not this buffoon.
BumRushDaShow
(127,348 posts)and rambling about "fake news".... So this tweet was just part of the series.
Yonnie3
(17,382 posts)but the three hours after his "normal" early morning rant tweets is unusual. Most daytime posts appear to be written or edited by someone else who has a bigly vocabulary, elementary knowledge of grammar, and a handle on spell checking.
It doesn't seem as if the Twitter intervention the staff did helped him.
BumRushDaShow
(127,348 posts)They are busy today blocking and creating bots though... https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029134591
Yonnie3
(17,382 posts)I hadn't read it yet and might have missed it.
blueinredohio
(6,797 posts)maybe finally wake up to have everything taken away because I would say most of them are on Medicaid
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)That's why the Dems didn't do it. If they had, the Republicans would be governing under that rule already.
The Republicans are going to think about this downside, for sure, esp since they are unpopular right now so that future elections are up in the air.
The sword cuts both ways.
iluvtennis
(19,763 posts)...and go argue his point in the house and the senate.
Trump is Unfit and Unqualified to occupy the WH
vkkv
(3,384 posts)apnu
(8,722 posts)He's whining again. He's too stupid and lazy to figure out how to govern. He's small minded and mean, and pisses people off then cries like a child when people resist his bullshit. He's a pathetic man-child and has no idea what any kind of effort is.