how did mcconnell get so much power?

so the main question is "when did the senate leader gain so much power?"

has the senate leader always had this much power and i'm only learning of it now?

think about it.

a supreme court vacancy that they president gets to fill opens up. mcconnel says "not this time".

the house passes hundreds of bills. mcconnell says "pound sand, and take these bills with you."

the first example usurps the presidency, the other usurps the house. its like the most powerful person in washington is the senate majority leader.

has it always been this way? i dont remember any other leaders having this much power.

a reply to: stormson

Each branch is a check on the other.
The House is the People. The Senate the States. That's congress, they pass bills and appoint judges. 1 Branch

The President is the executive, also signs bills into laws. 1 Branch

SCOTUS- Adjudicates constitutionality of said laws. 1 Branch

Each has the power to express power over the other branches. This is a hyper simple summation.

The Senate Majority leader has always had a fair amount of power. He was elected by his caucus thus speaks for the Majority in the Senate. He also has accumulated power from his time in office. But as the Majority leader he also has alot of say in who gets what committee etc.

In regards to the SCOTUS thing, some of his "power" was actually parliamentary procedure unlocked by the Democrats to push Obamacare through. Thus once the Genie is out of the bottle anybody that comes after him is free to use it as well.

Well, if you look around, most of the people who have all the power are ugly as hell and he's ugly as hell too so it only stands to reason that being ugly as hell and having no redeeming qualities at all gives you power.

Now I'm wondering why I'm not powerful.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

i know about the separation of powers, which is what prompted the question.

seems the senate majority leader is in charge of both executive and legislative.

dont like a presidential appointee, dont bring them up for a vote.

dont like a bill, dont bring it up to a vote.

a reply to: FredT

so the majority of the senate surrendered their power to the leader?

seems weird that one person gets to decide what bills to bring forth after the house has voted it through. shouldnt all bills be up for a vote since the house is a better representation of the people than the senate?

a reply to: stormson

That is all legislative.
Executive power is all about ensuring existing laws are being upheld.

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.

Pelosi is just like McConnell, but for the House. One could argue she had enough power to impeach a sitting POTUS without any actual crime being committed. All Mitch did was undo Pelosi’s abuse of power.

No, the Senate leader has not always had this much power. It’s all because of the existence of Superpacs. There is a Superpac called the Senate Leadership Fund; Mitch controls it. During the 2018 election cycle it controlled about 130 Million $. Rich Republicans donate millions to it and Mitch doles it out to Senators he likes to get them reelected. That’s how he keeps them in line. It’s the best Senate that money can buy.

It actually is a fairly new phenomenon that the majority of power in Congress is consolidated to just a few people. Here's a thread I made on it back in 2018.

How Congress Stopped Working

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?

originally posted by: stormson
so the main question is "when did the senate leader gain so much power?"

The Senate majority leader has always had this kind of power since the Constitution was penned.

Deal with it.

A much better question would be, since when does the House Majority leader think she has the power to tell the Senate what to do, or micro-manage the Executive branch when it comes to foreign policy?

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: stormson
The senate is a representation of the state's desires.

It is supposed to be, yes, but ever since the 17th Amendment was passed, they became just a secondary House of Representatives.

The 17th amendment should be abolished, and the Power of the States restored.

Without the 17th amendment, the States could - and did - recall Senators whenever they started acting against the best interests of the State (as determined by the State legislature).

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.

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

originally posted by: 1947boomer
No, the Senate leader has not always had this much power. It’s all because of the existence of Superpacs. There is a Superpac called the Senate Leadership Fund; Mitch controls it. During the 2018 election cycle it controlled about 130 Million $. Rich Republicans donate millions to it and Mitch doles it out to Senators he likes to get them reelected. That’s how he keeps them in line. It’s the best Senate that money can buy.

this is probably the best answer.

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.

originally posted by: stormson

a supreme court vacancy that they president gets to fill opens up. mcconnel says "not this time".

the house passes hundreds of bills. mcconnell says "pound sand, and take these bills with you."

the first example usurps the presidency, the other usurps the house. its like the most powerful person in washington is the senate majority leader.

has it always been this way? i dont remember any other leaders having this much power.

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

If you look at these 100s of bill the vast majority are crap...

Just like the impeachment... It wasn't a court of law, it was a court of Congress that the majority can do whatever they want, make up the rules they want, vote to impeach with nothing at all as proof. Court of law has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: stormson

a supreme court vacancy that they president gets to fill opens up. mcconnel says "not this time".

the house passes hundreds of bills. mcconnell says "pound sand, and take these bills with you."

the first example usurps the presidency, the other usurps the house. its like the most powerful person in washington is the senate majority leader.

has it always been this way? i dont remember any other leaders having this much power.

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

If you look at these 100s of bill the vast majority are crap...

Just like the impeachment... It wasn't a court of law, it was a court of Congress that the majority can do whatever they want, make up the rules they want, vote to impeach with nothing at all as proof. Court of law has nothing to do with it.

youre completely missing my point.

this has nothing to do with the assigned lanes of the house, senate, or president.

it has to do with one person having so much power that it usurps two branches of government.

the way its working now the house passes a bill to be sent to one person that can veto it without question or recourse. if the president vetos a bill it goes back to get an override.

if the president wants this or that judge it goes to one person that can veto it without question or recourse.

this is the part i find confusing. how has one person been vested with so much power?

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.