Useless

As predicted, Manchin and Sinema shot down amending the filibuster to enact voting rights legislation, because it's Manchin's corrupt political brand, and Sinema is a toxic narcissist.

It should be noted here that while Schumer is not responsible for Manchin being in the Senate, he aggressively recruited Sinema, and moved aggressively to forestall any challenges in the 2018 primary, so a significant portion of the blame here rests with Charles Schmer and the rest of the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment).

It begs the question:  Why should anyone vote for a political party which seems determined to do nothing, ever?

Senate Democrats failed again to pass sweeping new voting protections on Wednesday, in what may be the most brutal blow yet to efforts to strengthen protections for voters at a perilous moment for US democracy.

Just as they have done four other times in recent months, all 50 Republicans united in their opposition to the measure. They relied on the filibuster, a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance legislation to a final vote.

………

Their opposition set up a showdown as the ultimately doomed bill was taken up for discussion on Wednesday. Late in the evening, Republicans used the filibuster to vote to end debate on the bill, effectively blocking it from advancing. Immediately afterwards, Democrats moved to hold a vote to try and change the filibuster rules anyway. The effort failed 52-48, with Manchin and Sinema voting with all 50 Republicans to preserve the filibuster. Sinema loudly said “aye” when it was her turn to vote in favor of preserving the filibuster changes. 

The idea that the Senate is the, "World's Greatest Deliberative Body™," is a joke.  It's a Petri dish for narcissistic sociopaths.

Abolish the filibuster, period, full stop.

Took Him Long Enough

Joe Biden, a man whose whole life has been a love letter to the US Senate, has given up, and he is now calling for filibuster reform to allow for voting rights legislation to pass the Senate, because Republicans just want to burn everything down.

I know that the Senate is called the, "World's greatest deliberative body," but it's really jut a Petri dish for psychopaths. 

I'd really like to see the Senate stripped of the right to initiate or amend bills, much as is done with upper houses in many other governments, but I'm not holding my breath.

Joe Biden on Tuesday gave his most forceful endorsement to date of changing the Senate filibuster rule in order to pass sweeping voting rights legislation, saying he was “tired of being quiet” in a high-profile speech in Georgia.

In one of the most significant speeches of his presidency so far, Biden drew a connection in history between the civil rights movement, the 6 January attack on the US Capitol by extremist supporters of Donald Trump, and the unprecedented efforts in many states to restrict the vote over the last year.

He said America was at a moment to choose “democracy over autocracy”.

But despite the passion, some prominent Georgia civil rights activists, proclaiming themselves more interested in action than speeches, declined to attend the event in Atlanta on Tuesday where Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris spoke and urged progress in Congress to pass key legislation currently stalled there.

Describing himself as an “institutionalist”, Biden, who served in the Senate for more than three decades, said Republicans had “weaponized” the filibuster, turning the US Senate into a shell of what it once was.

………

“I’ve been having these quiet conversations with members of Congress for the last two months. I’m tired of being quiet,” he said, his voice rising. He also appealed to senators’ legacies, saying that those who did not stand up at this moment for voting rights would be remembered on the side of some of the most infamous racist political leaders in US history, including those supporting segregation or the Confederacy, as opposed to civil rights proponents.

“How do you want to be remembered? Do you want to be on the side of Dr King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? On the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?” he said.

Someone put some starch in his Ovaltine.

Harry Reid has Died

He was 82.

He was a decent guy, but like many Democratic Senators of his generation, he persisted in attempting a return to the decorous Senate of yore while the other side had decided to make the body a petri dish for narcissistic psychopaths.

Seriously?

A dejected looking Coons complains he won’t be able to attend a family wedding today because of Hagerty’s objections to voting on amendments.

“When even senators like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are agreeing we should wrap this up, you have to question what purpose does this serve”

— Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) August 7, 2021

Seriously, is every Democrat in the Senate a toxic narcissist?

I get being annoyed by this, but even the most clueless asshole out there knows that saying so in an official context serves no purpose beyond making one appear to be even MORE of a clueless asshole.

When I said that the Senate was a Petri Dish for narcissistic sociopaths, it appears that I was not engaging in hyperbole.

 H/t Atrios.

Headline of the Day

McConnell Threatens to Hold a Scorched-Earth Senate Hostage Unless He Can Keep the Filibuster to Hold the Senate Hostage

—The Washington Post

I am humbled, just like this

Damn.  Alexandra Petri uses just 20 words to say what took me 8 paragraphs, and at least twice as much quoted material.

I am impressed, and nonplussed by her mastery of the English language.

What Should Be Done Now, and Won't Be Done

Now that the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that a minimum wage increase cannot be passed through the reconciliation process, the course of action is clear, or at least it should be.

The President of the Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris, can overrule the unelected Senate official, and it would require a vote of 60 Senators to overrule her decision.

Unfortunately, given that Biden has already said that he thought that a minimum wage increase was dead, and Biden's chief of staff has said that Harris would not rule against her, it appears that they are playing to lose.

Not a surprise.  Learned helplessness, is an innate trait of the Democratic Party establishment (There is no Democratic Party establishment), and Joe Biden has enormous affection for an institution frequently called, "A Petri Dish for Psychopaths."

If they were not cowards or delusional, here is what would happen:

On Thursday, a key Senate official advised Democratic lawmakers that the chamber’s rules do not allow them to include a minimum wage increase in President Joe Biden’s first COVID-19 relief legislation. The ruling from the parliamentarian means that Vice President Kamala Harris could decide the fate of one of the Democratic Party’s most significant campaign promises — but it remains unclear what she will end up doing.

As the presiding officer of the Senate, Harris — who has long touted her support for a $15 minimum wage — can now use the power her predecessors have used to ignore the advisory opinion and fulfill Biden’s campaign promise to boost the wage. A confidential memo obtained by The Daily Poster now circulating on Capitol Hill spells out exactly how that could be accomplished.

However, White House chief of staff Ron Klain this week declared that Harris will refuse to use that power — a decision that would effectively put the Biden-Harris administration in the position of potentially killing the prospect of minimum wage legislation for the foreseeable future. Immediately after the parliamentarian’s ruling, the White House issued a statement reiterating Klain’s comment, declaring that “Biden respects the parliamentarian’s decision.”

Some congressional Democrats have already been arguing that the Biden administration’s refusal to overrule the parliamentarian would be immoral and a political disaster for their party.

………

As such, Democrats are working to pass the COVID bill using the convoluted budget reconciliation process. The process will allow for a simple majority vote on the final legislation, but it also allows Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough to recommend tossing certain provisions if she decides they violate the so-called Byrd Rule, which is designed to prohibit extraneous matters outside of federal spending issues to be added to budget legislation.

BTW, while not common, overruling the parliamentarian is by means rare, particularly given that the Senate can pass one reconciliation bill in a year:

Vice presidents have ignored the parliamentarian in the past. According to Slate, "Vice President Hubert Humphrey routinely ignored his parliamentarian’s advice.”

Roll Call reported last month: “Precedents for ignoring parliamentary advice include 1967, 1969, and 1975 efforts to change the Senate's threshold to end debate from a two-thirds vote to three-fifths.”

 ………

In a new memo circulating to lawmakers and obtained by The Daily Poster, Harris’s power as the presiding Chair of the Senate is spelled out, citing a precedent set during the Clinton administration.

“It would take 60 votes to overturn the ruling of the Chair on a Byrd Rule point of order, regardless of what the Parliamentarian advises,” states the memo. “Based on a search of the Congressional Record, it appears that only twice has the chair’s ruling on a Byrd Rule point of order been appealed. Both instances occurred on August 6, 1993, during consideration of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Neither appeal garnered the 60 affirmative votes necessary to overturn the Chair’s ruling.”

Like I said, the Dems are playing to lose, and come 2022, lose they will.

Could Someone Please Confirm this Bit of US Senate Minutiae?

According to this account, the power of the Senate Majority Leader is a matter of tradition in the US Senate, and so the president of the Senate (the Vice President of the US) can simply recognize some other member of the body to bring a motion to the floor.  (A quick Google finds similar arguments here.)

This is intriguing, but I do not think that this is particularly realistic.

Joe Biden pines for the "good old days" of the Senate, and I don't think that Kamala Harris would be particularly interested in presiding over the Petri Dish for narcissistic sociopaths that is the US Senate 4 days a week, but it would be useful to raise this possibility on the down low, and when questioned, issue a non-denial denial, to move things along.

This would be analogous to what happened during various showdowns about the US debt limit, the Obama administration denied that it was going to use seigniorage (the platinum coin of arbitrary value) to make an end run around Republican demands, but it does appear that the buzz around the concept did moderate reactionary intransigence:

Even if the Democrats don’t win control of the Senate, there is a wayto 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 [Republican] senators would pass. Including getting a cabinet assembled.

Given that Mitch McConnell is indicating that he will be even more obstructionist and intransigent about Biden than he was about Obama, the threat of this sort of action needs to be on the table as a subtext at the very least.

Something Good About the US Senate

Truth be told, I am not generally a fan of the Senate. I have referred to it as a Petri dish for narcissistic sociopaths in the past.

That being said, on rare occasions, its rather arcane rules occasionally yield positive results:

Congressional Republicans can’t use their tax cuts for the rich to define and codify the view that life begins at fertilization, according to the rules of the U.S. Senate.

The GOP’s initial tax proposals in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate each conferred 529 college savings plan benefits to an “unborn child…at any stage of development” in an unprecedented attempt to wield the tax code against reproductive rights. Republicans on Capitol Hill have long sought deeply unpopular fetal “personhood” bills that try to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception. Personhood laws, repeatedly rejected by voters across the United States, would criminalize abortion with no exception and ban many forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and health care for pregnant people.

The latest fetal personhood effort ultimately violated rules associated with the fast-track process Republicans are using to pass their tax bill. Under “reconciliation,” Republicans need a simple 51-vote majority in the Senate instead of the 60-vote threshold typically required to bypass a filibuster and pass controversial legislation. But reconciliation is subject to the Byrd rule, which puts the kibosh on provisions that are “merely incidental” to the budget.

In other words, Congress can’t wield the reconciliation process for the sake of a political agenda.

This is a good outcome, but I would still like to see the Senate more like the House, because it is a truly dysfunctional body.

Son of a Bitch!

I am not surprised that Republicans pulled the trigger on the nuclear option, but I am surprised that the Democratic caucus actually held together to sustain a filibuster.

I was wrong in my assessment of the Democratic caucus in the Senate,and (for once) they exceeded my (admittedly low) expectations:

Senators voted on Thursday to advance Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, setting up a final confirmation vote on Friday.

By a vote of to 55 to 45, all Republicans and three Democrats voted to proceed to final debate on the nomination of Gorsuch, 49, a Denver-based judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. If confirmed, Gorsuch would replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly last year, sparking a more than year-long feud among senators about the future makeup of the high court.

Gorsuch’s nomination advanced shortly after Republicans successfully voted to approve what is known as the “nuclear option,” changing Senate rules to allow the confirmation of Gorsuch and all other Supreme Court nominees by a simple-majority vote.

The long-anticipated change came after Democrats earlier blocked attempts to advance Gorsuch’s nomination. The change now means that all presidential nominees for executive branch positions and federal courts need only a simple-majority vote to be confirmed by senators.

But the change is also likely to make an already bitterly divided Senate even more partisan, with several senators warning in recent days that ending filibusters of presidential nominees could lead to the end of filibusters on legislation — effectively ending the Senate’s role as a slower, more deliberative legislative body.

First, the filibuster is, and always has been, an accident, and was never intended to be routine.

Secondly, the Senate is not a great deliberative body, it is a Petri dish for narcissistic sociopaths.

In the short term, the winners are the Republicans, and the losers are the American people, who will be subject to the Republican "ideas", and the Democrats.

In the long term, the winners will be the Democratic Party, who can enact policies without watering them down to meaninglessness, and the American people, who can benefit  from those policies.

The long term losers are the Republicans, who will find it harder to obstruct, conservative Democrats, who can no longer use the filibuster as an excuse to water down policies to their base.

All in all, I think that this turned out as well as can be expected.

I would suggest that people remember the 4 disloyal Democrats, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin, and Bennet.

These political careers need to be ended.

F%$# Me. I Agree with Mitch McConnell

He is looking at further restricting the filibuster.

Notwithstanding the assertions by Senators that the US Senate is "The Word's Greatest Deliberative Body," the filibuster, and its routine use has made it nothing more than a petri dish for psychopaths:^*

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is opening the door to changing the filibuster in response to growing pressure from Republicans angered that Democrats have blocked legislation from reaching the White House.

McConnell has appointed a special task force to explore changes to the filibuster rule and other procedural hurdles — including whether to eliminate filibusters on motions to proceed to legislation. That’s a tactic the minority often uses to shut down a bill before amendments can be considered.

McConnell has tapped his close ally, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Senate Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to form a task force with Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and two other freshmen to weigh various reforms. They hope to implement the changes at the start of next year.

“We’re going to take a serious look at whether Senate rules ought to be changed in order to make the Senate work more effectively,” Alexander said.

The filibuster is an accident of history, and it has done far more harm than good.

To the degree that the filibuster returns to the fetid swamps of history, it is a good thing, regardless of party.

^*Understand that this is not a formal diagnosis. I am an engineer, not a doctor, dammit!^†
†I LOVE IT when I get to go all Doctor McCoy!!!

It's a Petri Dish for Narcissistic Sociopaths

The filibuster stands largely unchanged:

The Senate enacted modest reforms to its filibuster rules with votes that kept bipartisan relations intact but left disappointed liberal groups fuming.

The reforms are the biggest changes to the Senate’s filibuster rules in decades but fell well short of drastic reforms demanded by labor unions and liberal-leaning advocacy groups.

The deal negotiated between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) provoked an outcry from liberal groups.

Passage of the deal sets to rest Reid’s threat, which he had wielded for months, to use the so-called "nuclear option" to change the Senate’s filibuster rules through a simple majority vote.

The enacted reforms do not include the implementation of the talking filibuster, which would require senators seeking to block legislation to actively hold the floor and debate. If debate stops, the pending matter moves to a simple majority vote, under this proposal.

Nor does it shift the burden of sustaining a filibuster onto the minority party by requiring senators to muster 41 votes to continue blocking legislation. Now the burden is on the majority to round up 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

It's streamlined a bit, but only a bit.

I'm depressed.

Why the Half Measure on the Filibuster?

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall wonders why, even though there appear to be the votes for requiring a full talking filibuster, that Harry Reid seems to be pushing for something weaker.

My take on this is that Reid, and other Senators of long tenure, are doing this because they have drunk the Koolaid^* about the Senate being the, "World's Greatest Deliberative Body."

They want to protect what they see as the "unique character" of the Senate, and so they are leery of making more sweeping changes.

So, to paraphrase Alexei Sayle, they say "Worlds Greatest Deliberative Body", and we say "Petri Dish for Narcissistic Sociopaths."

The Senate ran for decades on tacit agreements that were never a formal part of the rules, and the social contract within the body has broken down, and so the formal rules need to change.

Word now is that the vote on the Senate Rules will be on the 22^nd, and I am not optimistic.

^*It was actually either Wyler's or Flavor Aid at Jonestown, reports differ, not Koolaid.

And Republican Wankertude Reaches New Heights

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just filibustered his own bill:

My admiration for the Senate's minority leader, the Hon. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is limited. But his latest move took even me by surprise.

In a tactic he thought would put the Obama Administration in an uncomfortable position, yesterday McConnell proposed a measure that would give the president, rather than the Congress, the responsibility for raising the federal debt ceiling.

Then, when Democrats surprised him by being willing to bring it up for a vote, McConnell reacted in the way that comes most naturally to him: by threatening a filibuster. Attentive readers will recall that over the past six years, McConnell has been responsible for most of the filibusters in America's 225-year Constitutional history. ………

If anyone wonders if the casual use of the filibuster has not gone over the edge, they need to understand this: The Senate Minority Leader filibustered his own bill.

I understand that their are people who legitimately believe that the filibuster, as well as other traditions make the Senate the "World's greatest deliberative body," but I think the fact that that proves that it is nothing more than, "A petri dish for narcissistic sociopaths," because The Senate Minority Leader filibustered his own bill.

What part of, "The Senate Minority Leader filibustered his own bill," don't you understand?

Snatching defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Some people call the US Senate, "the World's greatest deliberative body". I call the US Senate, "A petri dish for narcissistic sociopaths," thanks to the need for unanimous consent (of failing that a vote of 60 Senators) to proceed.

Theoretically, the Senate Democrats can change filibuster rules by a simple majority vote at the start of the next Congress.

Unfortunately, it appears that Harry Reid does not have the votes to make a meaningful reform:

Democrats don’t have the 51 votes they need in the Senate to change filibuster rules that could make it harder for the GOP minority to wield power in the upper chamber.

Lawmakers leading the charge acknowledge they remain short, but express optimism they’ll hit their goal.

“I haven’t counted 51 just yet, but we’re working,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading proponent of the so-called constitutional or “nuclear” option, in which Senate rules could be changed by a majority vote.

“We’re building the momentum right now,” Udall said. “It’s hard to say at this point, but I think it’s looking very good. The last two years have really helped coalesce people’s minds around the idea that we need to change the way we do business.”

The problem for Udall and other supporters of filibuster reform is that many veteran Democratic senators remember when the filibuster was a useful tool in their years in the minority.

In the tradition-bound Senate, these veterans aren’t thrilled with changing the upper chamber’s rules, particularly with the use of the controversial constitutional option — which has never been used to change the chamber’s rules.

It's all well and good to respect Senate tradition, but part of that tradition was to use a bit of restraint, and using the filibuster for the little things.

It's sh%$ like this that makes people voting for Republicans.

As repugnant as their agenda, and their values, are at least Republicans are willing to fight for them.