how did mcconnell get so much power?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Have you actually read those bills? A bill starts in the house and if it passes goes to the Senate that can do nothing with it if they choose, but if it passes then goes to the President that can veto it dead, and if it passes the President the courts can overrule it too.

How is this different since the start of our country?

The majorly rules each branch, so the liberals can pass 1000s if they want, but that doesn't mean the Senate that is controlled by the Republicans even needs to look at them. Then even if the House is liberal, and the Senate is Liberal the President can say screw up all and kill it...lol

:

I would agree that most Bills from both parties are crap and 1000's literally die in committee and never see the light of day.

I would be remiss if I did not post these two gems (The Simpsons version is awesome)

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: stormson

So while McConnell broke tradition, and I was not happy that the stalled the SCOTUS nominee he did not do anything illegal, rather used parliamentary procedure to gum up the works. Again the Democrats opened up this avenue. He used the power appointed to him effectively that was already in place

POTUS nominates but the Senate Confirms. If the Senate will not hold a confirmation hearing, I'm not sure there is any constitutional recourse. This also may become the new normal for SCOTUS appointments with both sides now doing this if they are in a party different from the president.

The Senate used to be a place of some compromise and the partisanship was at least publicly more muted than that of the house, but those days are long gone.

but you see, the senate did not refuse confirmation hearings, one senator did. just one.

the senate is no longer 100 people arguing and making decisions, but one person deciding what comes before the other 99.

that is the crux of my issue, and i think it needs to be reformed.

a reply to: FredT

"I would agree that most Bills from both parties are crap and 1000's literally die in committee and never see the light of day."

i would even be happy with a committee veto. i just oppose one person deciding without recourse.

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: DanDanDat
What was it that you thought the Senate did if not approve federal judges and pass federal laws?

What was it that you thought the Senate leader did if not lead the Senate?

thats kinda the point. how can the senate approve a judge or pass a law if one person holds up the process?

i thought the senate leader did what leaders do, keep order and represent their people. i didnt think they were a king that could pick and choose what business was actually done.

Since the Senate leader is voted into place by the other members and not appointed you would be hard pressed to make the case that the leader is acting as one man making unilateral decisions. If the leader has the ability to stop legislation than that must be the collective will of the majority. If it wasn't he would be removed from being the leader.

i seriously thought that every bill passed by they house went into a que to be discussed and voted on by the senate.

Than you would have been seriously wrong. The House and the Senate, since their inception, have worked independently of each other and they can both craft legislation as they see fit. In the end they do have to come together and pass the same legislation before it becomes law, so it does benefit them to work together and compromise.

What usually happens is that both the Senate and House begin working independently on a mutual topic of legislation; presumably some important topic in the country currently (inferatructure for example). They each craft a bill that has a chance of passing in their chamber and than vote to pass it. If they both pass a bill it goes to "reconciliation" where each independently crafted bill are amalgamated together; somethings added, somethings dropped, untill they come up with one bill that has a chance to pass in both chambers (and get the approval of the president). They than independently vote on this new amalgamated bill; and if they both pass it (a second time) it becomes law.

It has never been the case that the every bill passed by the house went into a que to be discussed and voted on by the senate.

If you are perceiving a legislative log jam in the current make up of the Congress you can't lay that blame on just one chamber; for a log jam to occur both chambers would have to be working so independently of each other that they can't come together to pass anything. When it comes to the Congress it does take two to tango (or three if you consider the fact that they must take the presidents wishes into consideration)

What is currently happening is that the House has gone into overdrive passing bills that they know have very little support in the Senate and from the President. The Senate for its part is being obstinate because they don't want to waste their time working on bills they know the house won't pass. Neither is willing to compromise so nothing gets done. To blame that all on the current Senate Leader is misguided and will only help to perpetuate the situation. You should be blaming everyone in Congress. If enough people started to do that it might force them all to begin compromising.


Also the Senate use to be a more lively legislative arena; wherein the minority had more power to push for progress on a given subject. Unfortunately the rules in the Senate have been systimaticaly changed by both Democrat and Republican majorities in recent years in order to strengthen the hand of the majority.

For example the last Senate Leader Harry Reid lowered the 60-vote threshold to 51 for approval of Executive Branch appointees and federal judges below the Supreme Court. The current leader than extended that change to also include Supreme Court judges. Both a Democrat and a Republican working to consolidate power for the majority. Each of course complaining when the other did exactly what they themselves did.

We should all refrain from viewing our federal government through partisan and tribalistic tinted glasses and realize they are all complicit in the current level of disfunction.

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: stormson

The senate is a representation of the state's desires. The states and the people are both represented by congress.

A bad example: My state of California. The People in the House could decide Pooping on the streets is reasonable in our Society. When sent to the Senate, they could see why this might cause health and safety concerns for the States at large.

your example suggests that the senate will actually hear the bill and decide.

what im talking about is one senator deciding for all of senate.

An elected leader would be arguably one speaking for the majority. N'est-ce pas?

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: stormson

The senate is a representation of the state's desires. The states and the people are both represented by congress.

A bad example: My state of California. The People in the House could decide Pooping on the streets is reasonable in our Society. When sent to the Senate, they could see why this might cause health and safety concerns for the States at large.

your example suggests that the senate will actually hear the bill and decide.

what im talking about is one senator deciding for all of senate.

An elected leader would be arguably one speaking for the majority. N'est-ce pas?

and this from DanDanDat: "Since the Senate leader is voted into place by the other members and not appointed you would be hard pressed to make the case that the leader is acting as one man making unilateral decisions. If the leader has the ability to stop legislation than that must be the collective will of the majority. If it wasn't he would be removed from being the leader."

you both say the same thing. it seems like a correct answer. doesnt mean i have to like it though. i cant change it, but i dont have to like it.

btw, this wasnt a jab at mcconnell, but at the power structure. hes just the one that brought it to my attention. if a dem was doing this i wouldnt like it anymore.

this just seems like a slippery slope, and DanDanDat laid it out as a slippery slope. he wrote that the dems did this, so the gop could do that, and it all just feels and seems slimy to me.

the nature of the political sport, i suppose.

a reply to: stormson

I agree you do not have to like it. I do not have to like it either. But we do have to accept it.
It's not a slippery slope, it's how things are set up.