Getting rid of Moscow Mitch
sprout said:
The link is a bit dense... and I'm not a lawyer.
Brief interpretation?
yeah, that was a tough read. I gave up.
I'm guessing it's this passage STANV found relevant:
The majority leader has the right of first recognition pursuant to precedent. The leader was first granted priority of recognition in 1937 because of a ruling made by Vice President John (“Cactus Jack”) Nance Garner while presiding over the Senate. On his own initiative, the Vice President decided that “in the event that several senators seek recognition simultaneously, priority of recognition shall be accorded to the majority leader and minority leader, the majority [bill] manager and the minority [bill] manager, in that order.”
And that he's suggesting that VP Harris simply not recognize McConnell first. Whether that would actually be doable or a good idea, I really don't know enough about the senate to hazard a guess on. Maybe I should read Caro's Master of the Senate.
PVW said:
And that he's suggesting that VP Harris simply not recognize McConnell first. Whether that would actually be doable or a good idea, I really don't know enough about the senate to hazard a guess on. Maybe I should read Caro's Master of the Senate.
You should read it. It's very long but you appear to be a scholar,
For the rest of you I recommend the novel "Advise and Consent". It was written in the 50s and the Senate has changed but it will give you the essentials - and it is good as a novel.
Anyway, the Constitution says the VO is President of the Senate, It has no reference to a "Majority Leader". From the article I learned that the Senate Rules have only a few references to the Majority and Minority Leaders and those Rules do not give them much power. As to the Chair "recognizing" the Majority leader before anyone else, imagine you belong to an organization of 100 members whose meetings are supposed to be run democratically, but every time members raise their hands to speak the President calls on the same person. That person makes all the Motions. He or she ends up controlling everything if the majority of the members always support him/her. You can get up and say whatever you want and make a Motion but before it can be voted on the "Majority Leader" raises his/her hand and moves to "table the motion" or something like that.
Anyway, that is my understanding, but if you have never participated in an organization with membership meetings run according to Parliamentary Procedure" it may be difficult to understand.
BTW you can also look for the movie version of "Advise and Consent".
I really don't know much about this area, but the VP role has always seemed to me rather constrained. Seizing real power, for example having the VP decide who to recognize and, in that way, essentially control Senate business the way the majority leader currently does, strikes me as a pretty big intrusion of the executive branch on the legislative. I recall VP Cheney making noises around something like this, and not liking it. But, as I said, this is a long way from being based on any actual knowledge or understanding, just a gut reaction that VPs either don't, or shouldn't, have that kind of power.
Looked it up to refresh my memory -- Cheney claimed that his office was not subject to oversight of executive branch entities because "the vice president’s office was not an 'entity within the executive branch" due it the VP's role in the legislature. So not as relevant to this discussion as I recalled.
STANV said:
Anyway, that is my understanding, but if you have never participated in an organization with membership meetings run according to Parliamentary Procedure" it may be difficult to understand.
I barely got a handle on meetings run according to "Robert's rules of order"...
STANV said:
So no one is interested?
I am not a lawyer and I am a bit confused about what you are asking, but if Kamala can pull a fast one on Moscow Mitch I am all for it.
Also, I cannot believe you are all so serious about the US Constitution. Do you realize this document is written by a bunch of slave handlers 200+ years ago? I understand it is the basis of the US rule of law (sort of), but it is hardly the world's greatest example of a constitutional document. A bunch of high school kids could probably do better today.
basil said:
STANV said:
So no one is interested?
I am not a lawyer and I am a bit confused about what you are asking, but if Kamala can pull a fast one on Moscow Mitch I am all for it.
Also, I cannot believe you are all so serious about the US Constitution. Do you realize this document is written by a bunch of slave handlers 200+ years ago? I understand it is the basis of the US rule of law (sort of), but it is hardly the world's greatest example of a constitutional document. A bunch of high school kids could probably do better today.
I don't see one post praising the Constitution. What are you talking about?
OTOH, one needs to take it seriously, as it's our controlling document.
drummerboy said:
basil said:
Also, I cannot believe you are all so serious about the US Constitution. Do you realize this document is written by a bunch of slave handlers 200+ years ago? I understand it is the basis of the US rule of law (sort of), but it is hardly the world's greatest example of a constitutional document. A bunch of high school kids could probably do better today.
I don't see one post praising the Constitution. What are you talking about?
OTOH, one needs to take it seriously, as it's our controlling document.
Check out "What the Constitution Means to Me". Off-Broadway Play that is on Netflix
PVW said:
I really don't know much about this area, but the VP role has always seemed to me rather constrained. Seizing real power, for example having the VP decide who to recognize and, in that way, essentially control Senate business the way the majority leader currently does, strikes me as a pretty big intrusion of the executive branch on the legislative. I recall VP Cheney making noises around something like this, and not liking it. But, as I said, this is a long way from being based on any actual knowledge or understanding, just a gut reaction that VPs either don't, or shouldn't, have that kind of power.
The Constitution makes the VP the President of the Senate. If she conducted the sessions in a fair manner according to the Senate Rules or "Robert's Rules" mentioned by sprout I wouldn't have a problem.
basil said:
Also, I cannot believe you are all so serious about the US Constitution. Do you realize this document is written by a bunch of slave handlers 200+ years ago? I understand it is the basis of the US rule of law (sort of), but it is hardly the world's greatest example of a constitutional document. A bunch of high school kids could probably do better today.
That’s deep.
Well well well, looks like Moscow Mitch is now ready to throw Trump under the bus too. That's great, but he still needs to be held accountable himself too, because he enabled the man for the last 5 years, and if he hadn't done that last week's Capitol storming would have never happened.
If Mitch can deliver a Senate conviction, that would go an awfully long way to restoring the Repugnican brand.
Getting rid of Trump is the best chance Mitch has to normalize the republican party and start to rid it of Trumpism.
jimmurphy said:
If Mitch can deliver a Senate conviction, that would go an awfully long way to restoring the Repugnican brand.
Not in my book. Maybe if he had done it the first time around.
McConnell would also need to show willingness to discipline the Seditious Six. At the very least they should lose committee seats. Formal censure would be better.
Expulsion would be particularly delightful, especially for Hawley and Cruz. I just think it's highly unlikely 2/3 of the Senate would vote to expel them.
mrincredible said:
McConnell would also need to show willingness to discipline the Seditious Six. At the very least they should lose committee seats. Formal censure would be better.
Expulsion would be particularly delightful, especially for Hawley and Cruz. I just think it's highly unlikely 2/3 of the Senate would vote to expel them.
Eight
Steve said:
Eight
Dammit. What's a catchy phrase for eight? "Seditious Six" is so fun to say.
mrincredible said:
Steve said:
Eight
Dammit. What's a catchy phrase for eight? "Seditious Six" is so fun to say.
Egregious Eight?
jamie said:
Getting rid of Trump is the best chance Mitch has to normalize the republican party and start to rid it of Trumpism.
I've written this many times but Trump is merely a symptom. He was the guy shrewd enough to see that the parade had formed and he ran to the front of it. Trumpism isn't going to go away just because Mitch McConnell tries to wish it away. This was forty years in the making -- misinformation and disinformation from right wing media and GOP leaders, used to stoke grievances, resentment and hatred. It's not just going to disappear with one guy's expulsion.
ml1 said:
I've written this many times but Trump is merely a symptom. He was the guy shrewd enough to see that the parade had formed and he ran to the front of it. Trumpism isn't going to go away just because Mitch McConnell tries to wish it away. This was forty years in the making -- misinformation and disinformation from right wing media and GOP leaders, used to stoke grievances, resentment and hatred. It's not just going to disappear with one guy's expulsion.
I agree with this post but I can't bring myself to "Like" it.
I keep thinking that there have to be significant consequences for the worst enablers. I hope lots of the rioters end up with lengthy jail time.
I am concerned about Mikie Sherrill's statement that members of Congress were conducting tours the day before which, in her opinion, were reconnaissance visits. Whether those tours included MAGA insurgents remains to be seen, and obviously there would need to be proof that the members of Congress had some kind of nefarious intent.
Depending on what's provable, these actions must also carry consequences. It's one way to root out the cancer of Trumpism.
This will take years to unravel.
mrincredible said:
ml1 said:
I've written this many times but Trump is merely a symptom. He was the guy shrewd enough to see that the parade had formed and he ran to the front of it. Trumpism isn't going to go away just because Mitch McConnell tries to wish it away. This was forty years in the making -- misinformation and disinformation from right wing media and GOP leaders, used to stoke grievances, resentment and hatred. It's not just going to disappear with one guy's expulsion.
I agree with this post but I can't bring myself to "Like" it.
I keep thinking that there have to be significant consequences for the worst enablers. I hope lots of the rioters end up with lengthy jail time.
I am concerned about Mikie Sherrill's statement that members of Congress were conducting tours the day before which, in her opinion, were reconnaissance visits. Whether those tours included MAGA insurgents remains to be seen, and obviously there would need to be proof that the members of Congress had some kind of nefarious intent.
Depending on what's provable, these actions must also carry consequences. It's one way to root out the cancer of Trumpism.
This will take years to unravel.
there are tens of millions of people who literally believe that Democrats, and their cabal of liberals, "elites", people of color, LGBTQ people, "secularists" etc., are hell bent on destroying their way of life. That's going to be hard to get past, when these people truly believe they are on a mission of self-preservation. Donald J. Trump was sent by God to save them from their tormentors, and now he's under siege. Their behavior within this context makes perfect sense. It's not irrational, and it's not illogical if you accept their premise. How do we turn around tens of millions of people who believe people like you and me are trying to destroy them?
mrincredible said:
I agree with this post but I can't bring myself to "Like" it.
I keep thinking that there have to be significant consequences for the worst enablers. I hope lots of the rioters end up with lengthy jail time.
I am concerned about Mikie Sherrill's statement that members of Congress were conducting tours the day before which, in her opinion, were reconnaissance visits. Whether those tours included MAGA insurgents remains to be seen, and obviously there would need to be proof that the members of Congress had some kind of nefarious intent.
Depending on what's provable, these actions must also carry consequences. It's one way to root out the cancer of Trumpism.
This will take years to unravel.
Now I'm conflicted about when it's appropriate to hit the "like" button.
Does @jamie have to add an "I agree even though I hate the idea" button?
A lot to ponder. But I agree with your post.
Imagine for a moment if Fauci and Birx were complicit. How many of his supporters would have injected bleach into themselves?
There has to be accountability.
ml1 said:
there are tens of millions of people who literally believe that Democrats, and their cabal of liberals, "elites", people of color, LGBTQ people, "secularists" etc., are hell bent on destroying their way of life. That's going to be hard to get past, when these people truly believe they are on a mission of self-preservation. Donald J. Trump was sent by God to save them from their tormentors, and now he's under siege. Their behavior within this context makes perfect sense. It's not irrational, and it's not illogical if you accept their premise. How do we turn around tens of millions of people who believe people like you and me are trying to destroy them?
In their daily lives do they actually experience destruction of their way of life"? Do they live in a fantasy? Are they psychotic? Paranoid?
STANV said:
In their daily lives do they actually experience destruction of their way of life"? Do they live in a fantasy? Are they psychotic? Paranoid?
I think they are fed a steady diet of their lifestyle being destroyed via Fox News. Lots of video of rioting amid the police violence protests last year.
ml1 said:
there are tens of millions of people who literally believe that Democrats, and their cabal of liberals, "elites", people of color, LGBTQ people, "secularists" etc., are hell bent on destroying their way of life. That's going to be hard to get past, when these people truly believe they are on a mission of self-preservation. Donald J. Trump was sent by God to save them from their tormentors, and now he's under siege. Their behavior within this context makes perfect sense. It's not irrational, and it's not illogical if you accept their premise. How do we turn around tens of millions of people who believe people like you and me are trying to destroy them?
I have no idea how to overcome their racism, but appealing to their economic interests seems the best way.
On the order of Romney’s “Tell them the truth”, I’d tell them that they need to be retrained because coal and X manufacturing has no future and we’re going to provide retraining in _____. Free community college seems appropriate by right.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Not getting rid of him completely but Kamala Harris could take away his power.
https://www.legbranch.org/2018-8-1-what-makes-senate-leaders-so-powerful/