Maybe the tactic is to make us all so exhausted of being outraged at absurd shit all the time before he's even sworn in so we're too jaded and demoralized to give any more shits?
This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.
I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.
You can only kill the fillibuster in the rules vote on the first day of class. After that, it's in place for two years.
So if they still haven't gotten a nominee seated by 2018 and we can't get our shit together before then, maybe.
This is not true. The legislature sets the rules and they can change them whenever they want.
So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.
But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?
So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?
This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.
It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.
But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?
Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.
Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.
Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.
This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.
They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.
Except it's a toothless non-partisan office that operates independently only because we agree that's what it is. But the other side doesn't agree with that anymore, and they're going to tell it to just get fucked.
The Reconciliation process and in particular the Byrd rule(which includes the sunset provisions and revenue neutral stuff) is outlined in law.
Law that has no power.
Congress cannot bind congress and implicit repeal is a thing.
Changing the rules to remove the filibuster requires more votes than just ending the filibuster. Without democrat votes, they can no longer remove it for this Congress.
Congress cannot bind a future congress, but they can bind the current. That's why any of the rules mean anything. And implicit repeal requires a law to have been passed. If the rules say it wasn't passed, it can't implicitly repeal the rules.
No it does not require more votes than ending the filibuster. It requires 50%+1. As it always has.
Congress also cannot bind the current. For the same reasons they cannot bind latter. New law supersedes old law and congress can always write new law.
The only reason that the rules work as they do is because the majority continues to agree they do. It is convention and nothing more.
And convention means nothing these days.
Uh, the rules take 66% to change because they just legally bound themselves to that requirement, persuant to the constitution, in making that a rule.
Pursuant to the Constitution they set the rules and can do so at any time. At 50%+1.
Congress is bound by the law . The budget act is the law. Current congress can't bind future ones with rules but laws stand unless they're changed
Congress cannot be bound by law. They write new law. The new law supersedes the old law. The old law is implicitly repealed.
Edit: To clarify: Congressional acts cannot be bound by any law but the constitution and international treaties. New legislation supersedes old legislation. The old legislation literally doesn't even need to be specifically repealed.
Yes but they'd have to write the new law and pass it. Congress can't nullify a law by changing their internal rules. The flow of is Constitution > Federal Law > Congressional rules
Maybe the tactic is to make us all so exhausted of being outraged at absurd shit all the time before he's even sworn in so we're too jaded and demoralized to give any more shits?
I was basically at my breaking point after the election, I don't know how I can keep following this nonsense for four years
This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.
I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.
You can only kill the fillibuster in the rules vote on the first day of class. After that, it's in place for two years.
So if they still haven't gotten a nominee seated by 2018 and we can't get our shit together before then, maybe.
This is not true. The legislature sets the rules and they can change them whenever they want.
So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.
But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?
So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?
This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.
It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.
But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?
Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.
Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.
Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.
This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.
They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.
Except it's a toothless non-partisan office that operates independently only because we agree that's what it is. But the other side doesn't agree with that anymore, and they're going to tell it to just get fucked.
The Reconciliation process and in particular the Byrd rule(which includes the sunset provisions and revenue neutral stuff) is outlined in law.
Law that has no power.
Congress cannot bind congress and implicit repeal is a thing.
Changing the rules to remove the filibuster requires more votes than just ending the filibuster. Without democrat votes, they can no longer remove it for this Congress.
Congress cannot bind a future congress, but they can bind the current. That's why any of the rules mean anything. And implicit repeal requires a law to have been passed. If the rules say it wasn't passed, it can't implicitly repeal the rules.
No it does not require more votes than ending the filibuster. It requires 50%+1. As it always has.
Congress also cannot bind the current. For the same reasons they cannot bind latter. New law supersedes old law and congress can always write new law.
The only reason that the rules work as they do is because the majority continues to agree they do. It is convention and nothing more.
And convention means nothing these days.
Uh, the rules take 66% to change because they just legally bound themselves to that requirement, persuant to the constitution, in making that a rule.
Pursuant to the Constitution they set the rules and can do so at any time. At 50%+1.
No, the constitution doesn't say how the rules are set. Thats why the rules include how rules are set. The rules say supermajority.
I mean, if we have to get hyper pedantic the constitution also doesn't define what it means for a bill to pass a house of Congress. Does that mean they can just have a committee declare something passed?
They howl about states rights when they want to do something like discriminate against black people, but when the blue states want to do something like improve healthcare, suddenly they come over all Stalinesque.
Like how Obama rolls over abroad and crushes dissent here at home! What a dictator and/or wuss.
They howl about states rights when they want to do something like discriminate against black people, but when the blue states want to do something like improve healthcare, suddenly they come over all Stalinesque.
Like how Obama rolls over abroad and crushes dissent here at home! What a dictator and/or wuss.
"They" in my ambiguous sentence refers to "The Republicans"
Maybe the tactic is to make us all so exhausted of being outraged at absurd shit all the time before he's even sworn in so we're too jaded and demoralized to give any more shits?
If you follow that trump is a russian puppet, this is literally what they have been doing for a while now. Make chaos normal, noone bats an eye to absolutely horrible things.
House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to a $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with compiling those lists of unwanted individual federal workers.
as someone that's been waiting for the extensive background and clearances necessary to start working in DC at a new job just after graduating from college
please shoot me
time to start thinking about what I'll do if this falls through
Serious question. Can Trump unilaterally make and use concentration camps? If so I think there is a 30% chance we will see them in the next 4 years.
It's not going to be the exact same thing, but watch the immigrant prisons. They're already pretty closed to the public. Insufficient housing, medical care, nutrition, etc. Slightly higher rates of death, illness and violent crime than the already deplorable conditions in normal prisons? We're not going to have "concentration camps" but there will be prisons where immigrants do not fare well, and they will not go home nor come back into the US.
Congress is bound by the law . The budget act is the law. Current congress can't bind future ones with rules but laws stand unless they're changed
Congress cannot be bound by law. They write new law. The new law supersedes the old law. The old law is implicitly repealed.
Edit: To clarify: Congressional acts cannot be bound by any law but the constitution and international treaties. New legislation supersedes old legislation. The old legislation literally doesn't even need to be specifically repealed.
Yes but they'd have to write the new law and pass it. Congress can't nullify a law by changing their internal rules. The flow of is Constitution > Federal Law > Congressional rules
Nope. Constitution says that Congressional Rules trump Federal law.
Yes but they'd have to write the new law and pass it. Congress can't nullify a law by changing their internal rules. The flow of is Constitution > Federal Law > Congressional rules
Nope. Constitution says that Congress gets to set its rules. Congress cannot write law that prohibits it from changing its rules(its not one of the enumerated powers). It can write rules yes. But it can change those whenever it wants.
The reason that rules have stayed consistent and congresses have abide by them is convention and convention only.
0
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
"They" in my ambiguous sentence refers to "The Republicans"
Yeah the leadership is very good at having two conflicting ideas at the same time. "We need the government so small we can drown it in a bathtub! Except for our foreign policy, which requires us to be the most powerful country in the history of mankind and able to invade anywhere on the planet"
so, lately I've been getting a lot of pleas to donate money in return for one of these
Which...no. Although Reagan did the same thing- great-grandparents left me a couple "Gold Executive Committee Member" cards from his campaign.
Maybe the tactic is to make us all so exhausted of being outraged at absurd shit all the time before he's even sworn in so we're too jaded and demoralized to give any more shits?
If you follow that trump is a russian puppet, this is literally what they have been doing for a while now. Make chaos normal, noone bats an eye to absolutely horrible things.
This is playing with fire. A lot of people get horrible when they stop caring about horrible.
House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to a $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with compiling those lists of unwanted individual federal workers.
as someone that's been waiting for the extensive background and clearances necessary to start working in DC at a new job just after graduating from college
please shoot me
time to start thinking about what I'll do if this falls through
"They" in my ambiguous sentence refers to "The Republicans"
Yeah the leadership is very good at having two conflicting ideas at the same time. "We need the government so small we can drown it in a bathtub! Except for our foreign policy, which requires us to be the most powerful country in the history of mankind and able to invade anywhere on the planet"
so, lately I've been getting a lot of pleas to donate money in return for one of these
"They" in my ambiguous sentence refers to "The Republicans"
Yeah the leadership is very good at having two conflicting ideas at the same time. "We need the government so small we can drown it in a bathtub! Except for our foreign policy, which requires us to be the most powerful country in the history of mankind and able to invade anywhere on the planet"
so, lately I've been getting a lot of pleas to donate money in return for one of these
Apparently Rand Paul and Tom Cotton are actually saying "repeal and lol what replacement?" isn't going to pass muster with them. They want the repeal, but they don't want to kick the can down the road afterwards.
Apparently Rand Paul and Tom Cotton are actually saying "repeal and lol what replacement?" isn't going to pass muster with them. They want the repeal, but they don't want to kick the can down the road afterwards.
Don't they also not have much influence to do anything about it though?
Posts
So basically unilaterally then.
That's how he won the election so...
Pursuant to the Constitution they set the rules and can do so at any time. At 50%+1.
Email it to Podesta, then leak it. "New Podesta Emails Outline Plans to Undermine Federal Ethics Board and State's Rights"
Yes but they'd have to write the new law and pass it. Congress can't nullify a law by changing their internal rules. The flow of is Constitution > Federal Law > Congressional rules
Says who?
I was basically at my breaking point after the election, I don't know how I can keep following this nonsense for four years
No, the constitution doesn't say how the rules are set. Thats why the rules include how rules are set. The rules say supermajority.
I mean, if we have to get hyper pedantic the constitution also doesn't define what it means for a bill to pass a house of Congress. Does that mean they can just have a committee declare something passed?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
You can go to their website. Right now they're very "liberals are puppets of the neo cons and they're fear mongering Trump"
So yes I expect they'd cheer.
"They" in my ambiguous sentence refers to "The Republicans"
If you follow that trump is a russian puppet, this is literally what they have been doing for a while now. Make chaos normal, noone bats an eye to absolutely horrible things.
Is a majority in SCOTUS even needed? Korematsu is still established precedent.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Has to survive getting back to SCOTUS.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Isn't she the same bint that looked the other way on trump U after he donated to her reelection campaign?
Drain the swamp, right?
Thus the aristocrats, yes.
as someone that's been waiting for the extensive background and clearances necessary to start working in DC at a new job just after graduating from college
please shoot me
time to start thinking about what I'll do if this falls through
Strictly speaking, as long as SCOTUS remains deadlocked then any rulings they are required to make default against the plaintiff.
God help you.
They default back to the lower court ruling.
I mean, technically speaking, the rest of the country is getting less corrupt as his gravity well attracts all the terrible people to DC.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
She didn't just look the other way, she was bribed 25k by Trump Foundation.
Right he threw that money the other way, away from the investigation, and she looked at it while she put it in her pockets.
It's not going to be the exact same thing, but watch the immigrant prisons. They're already pretty closed to the public. Insufficient housing, medical care, nutrition, etc. Slightly higher rates of death, illness and violent crime than the already deplorable conditions in normal prisons? We're not going to have "concentration camps" but there will be prisons where immigrants do not fare well, and they will not go home nor come back into the US.
Nope. Constitution says that Congressional Rules trump Federal law.
Nope. Constitution says that Congress gets to set its rules. Congress cannot write law that prohibits it from changing its rules(its not one of the enumerated powers). It can write rules yes. But it can change those whenever it wants.
The reason that rules have stayed consistent and congresses have abide by them is convention and convention only.
so, lately I've been getting a lot of pleas to donate money in return for one of these
Which...no. Although Reagan did the same thing- great-grandparents left me a couple "Gold Executive Committee Member" cards from his campaign.
This is playing with fire. A lot of people get horrible when they stop caring about horrible.
Reminds me of my EU funded job...
What organization is asking you to donate, out of interest? Aren't calls for donations kind of... unusual after the election's over?
A grift where the griftee gets a nifty little card and then gets to feel very self-important.
Meh. Obama gave me a phone.
Inauguration committee. Its not unusual to get donations to fund the inauguration iirc.
-Gay Marriage
-Abortion
-Education
-Religious Freedom
-Net Neutrality
-Freedom of Speech
-Right to Vote
-Freedom of the Press
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Gay Marriage is fairly safe for the time being.
They are going to go after other LGBT rights though, and they are ESPECIALLY going to go after trans people.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
They're going to.
Republicans, when in total control are literally their own worst enemy.
Their control of the government had preceded every economic disaster we've ever had.
Don't they also not have much influence to do anything about it though?