Schumer: "McConnell will not dictate to the Senate -- McConnell is no longer the Majority Leader."

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Hugo Lowell
@hugolowell
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer now comes down hard at GOP for standing in the way of the organizing resolution: “McConnell will not dictate to the Senate — McConnell is no longer the Majority Leader.”
10:52 AM · Jan 24, 2021

[servermsh]

1. I'm happy to hear these statements, but what is Schumer actually going to do?

Is he going to force a vote and force them to filibuster? Will he execute the "nuclear option", at least for organizing resolutions?

We don't have time to waste. We're already 21 days past January 3rd.

[Irish_Dem]

3. Schumer needs to do whatever McConnell did to wield all the power when Maj leader.

[SharonAnn]

4. Say one thing and then gleefully do the opposite!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

11. Exactly! Jiu-jitso their asses with their own bullshit. nt

[Irish_Dem]

22. This should be the new Dem mantra.

Ju jitso their asses with their own bullshit.

[AllaN01Bear]

59. i heart that saying.:)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

69. If nothing else, I am a poet at heart...... :-p nt

[JudyM]

88. Excellent mantra.

[pnwmom]

16. That's not possible with a 50/50 split. Kamala can break ties on full Senate votes,

but she can't sit on all the evenly divided committees.

[Irish_Dem]

20. I would bet a large sum of money that McConnell would have figured how to leverage the same

situation to his advantage.

And I am not a betting person.

[NYC Liberal]

30. He would have bypassed the committee and brought it to the floor for a vote.

[Irish_Dem]

31. Yep.

We need to use McConnell's tactics.

[StarfishSaver]

75. How exactly would he have done that?

And how would he have done that with every piece of legislation?

Easy to say in the abstract that he would hav done that, ,but please explain how this would have actually been done under actual Senate rules and how it would work now.

[BumRushDaShow]

78. There are times when a Senator or House member

can force bills to the floor by doing a "Discharge Petition " in the House and "Discharge Resolution" in the Senate (which is usually considered a privileged resolution).

What usually happens then is that someone (the leaders most likely) will make a motion to table it, get a second, and then will have a vote to table it with no further consideration, where depending on the makeup of the chamber, it usually dies.

[StarfishSaver]

79. I'm aware of that

How would that work to get every piece of legislation to a vote on the floor, as the poster recommended?

[BumRushDaShow]

80. It would be tedious and spiteful

but probably do-able in a technical sense if one wants to continue to break the already broken decorum in that chamber.

[StarfishSaver]

82. It would be utterly impractical

And it would not result in getting legislation we care about and that will benefit the people enacted into law - which is supposed to be the point.

[BumRushDaShow]

86. Of course.

It depends on how much of a PITA one wants to be to make a point (not that I endorse it but as I noted, it would be a spite job).

[LizBeth]

37. +1

[groundloop]

33. I believe they already agreed that anything will move out of committee with a 50-50 split.

[Fiendish Thingy]

47. That is the proposal, no agreement yet. Nt

[druidity33]

61. But we CHAIR all the committees now. Big difference. K&R, nt.

[MagickMuffin]

6. What does this mean: We don't have time to waste. We're already 21 days past January 3rd.

What does the 3rd of January have to do with anything?

I'm confused and I've seen this statement before and curious as to what it means.


Thanks

[servermsh]

7. We may lose the Senate in two years, or earlier

We could lose the Senate in two years. Then Mitch will block EVERYTHING.

And if we get unlucky, a death in the wrong State will give control to Republicans.

January 3rd is the start of the new session of the Senate (I'm ignoring the "continuing body" thing). That is the date when 1/3rd of the Senators start a brand new term.

[LizBeth]

8. New session though is insignificant for conversation and your 21 days. Really 3? 4? days.

[servermsh]

14. Time is time. Time doesn't care. We've lost 21 days, not all of which Democrats could control.

But we have still lost that time! No time to waste!

[LizBeth]

25. I feel, a ridiculous argument so have at it, lol.

[MagickMuffin]

9. Well we had 2 senators who had not yet been confirmed

1 awaiting the Electoral certification on the 6th before she could resign and be replaced. Then we had a failed insurrection on the 6th.

And after the 20th we finally had the 3 Senators sworn in to make it the 50-50 senate.

So, until the 20th the senate chambers were still in republican control.

[servermsh]

15. Sure, but time is time!

The calendar is the calendar! 1/3rd of the Senators have their term end on January 3rd in two years. It is still time we lost!

No time to waste!

[sheshe2]

87. You are forecasting 2022 Democratic defeat...

You are forecasting 2022 Democratic defeat days after Biden takes office? You say we will lose a Senate we just won?

[wnylib]

100. The risk is real. Our majority is

razor thin and mid terms often swing the opposite direction, e.g. 2010 after Obama's first 2 years. We will have to fight hard for both houses in 2022.

[True Blue American]

41. Jan. 3rd is when the 3 new

Senators were sworn in.

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. Not true- they were sworn in this past week- they weren't even elected/appointed on Jan. 3

January 3 is when the newly elected Congress and Senate were sworn in.

[MagickMuffin]

48. My eyes deceive me as I thought I witnessed our newly Madam Vice President Swear them in

on January 20, 2021. And the GA run off wasn't even conducted until January 5th and they weren't certified until this past week.

So, no one was sworn in on Jan 3rd.

[whopis01]

53. Senators were sworn in on January 3rd.

The two in runoffs were not of course. And Harris hadn’t resigned so her replacement appointee wasn’t either. But many Senators were sworn in on January 3rd.

[appmanga]

67. That's when members of Congress...

...who've been certified by their states are sworn in.

[pnwmom]

17. We didn't have the 2 Georgia Senators on January 3, so that date is irrelevant. n/t

[servermsh]

18. It is relevant because the terms still end January 3rd two years from now!

Time is wasting! I know we couldn't control things until January 20th, but the time lost is still lost!

[pnwmom]

21. We didn't "waste" those days -- we didn't control the Senate then. And they're not wasting

time now, they're using it.

[servermsh]

28. Republicans still control most committees. And the terms end January 3rd two years from now.

Don't know how it could be more clear. Yes, we couldn't do anything until January 20th, but those 17 days are still lost!

[jaxexpat]

32. when yer right yer right

[Thekaspervote]

35. We need to trust our dem leaders!! Schumer isn't about to let turtle run things!!

[bluestarone]

2. THIS to the

BILLIONTH power!!!

[triron]

10. How about a googleplex? That's a google raised to the google power.

A google is 10 raised to the 100th power.

[bluestarone]

12. THAT works for me!!

[Blue Owl]

5. Goddamn fucking right he won't

Shove it, Miserable Minority Mitch

[still_one]

13. Sounds good, but the reality is that until the rules are solidified between Schumer and McConnell

McConnell is asking as part of the Senate rules that the Filibuster stay in tack

The question is what happens if McConnell blocks any power sharing agreement unless Schumer agrees to leave the filibuster alone?

That is exactly what he is doing.

[orangecrush]

23. All the more reason

To nuke the filibuster.

[Loki Liesmith]

27. Manchin is not going to nuke the filibuster

[orangecrush]

62. He would

If it behooves him to do so.

That can be arranged.

[still_one]

39. Easier said than done

[orangecrush]

60. Easier

Than having them block everything.

[still_one]

72. Until the rules are solidified, how is anything going to go forward?

[orangecrush]

81. We make the rules now.

[StarfishSaver]

83. Please explain how "we make the rules now"

And please be specific. How exactly do we do that in the real world (not "Let's just DO it, dammit!" Fantasyland).

[orangecrush]

89. Ummm...

"For example, consider recent claims by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that he alone decides what bills get considered on the Senate floor. When asked if the Senate would consider legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller, McConnell responded, “I’m the one who decides what we take to the floor, that’s my responsibility as the majority leader, and we will not be having this on the floor of the Senate.” Or take Harry Reid’s, D-NV., regular habit of deciding what, if any, amendments were permitted to be offered to bills when he was majority leader.

Yet notwithstanding the mounting frustration among rank-and-file members during the tenures of both leaders, neither Reid nor McConnell saw a significant challenge to their leadership. The takeaway from this is that party leaders wield more power today than at any other point in the Senate’s history. And it suggests that rank-and-file members, despite their clear frustration with the status quo, cannot imagine the Senate working without the active involvement of their leaders."

https://www.legbranch.org/2018-8-1-what-makes-senate-leaders-so-powerful/


I am assuming that "majority leader" means as much for us as it did for the turtle.

Of course, I might be mistaken, and often am.

[StarfishSaver]

90. "Majority Leader" doesn't mean the same thing right now that it meant in August 2018

Schumer is Majority Leader but mostly in name only right now - he doesn't yet have all of the powers to do what's set out in the 2018 article you linked (that was written a year and half into a Senate term in which McConnell had a clear majority, not 4 days after he became Majority Leader with a a 50-50 split).

This is a very different situation. And at this point in the game, Democrats can't just "make the rules."

[orangecrush]

91. Thanks for the clarification.

Turtle is still the minority leader, I hope....

[StarfishSaver]

93. He is, indeed

And if we want it to stay that way, we need to lay off of Schumer, let him do what he needs to do and stop acting as if he's "caving" or lacks a backbone because he hasn't passed the new New Deal in the last three days.

[orangecrush]

94. I have always admired Schumer

I feel he took a courageous stance in the darkest hours of Trump, for which I will be forever grateful.

I am sorry if I gave any other impression.

I feel he has hard earned his present position, and I have hope that he will use it for maximum effect for us, his supporters.

[StarfishSaver]

95. My frustration's not really directed at you

[orangecrush]

96. No problem

There seems to be a lot of Democrat bashing going on since Joe won.

And it sounds very familiar, like a stock collection of talking points.

You are right in calling it out.

[marylandblue]

24. If it came right down to it, the rules are what Schumer says they are.

It may take a little time, but ultimately, the President of the Senate would call a vote on Schumer's version.

[still_one]

40. I thought they go with the rules of the last Senate until an agreement is reached. However, if it

is as you are saying, why wait?

[marylandblue]

43. I'm not sure of all the details, but a lot of the rules are merely what they agreed to in the past.

If 50+1 Senators voted to ignore all past rules and make up completely new ones, the others would not be able to stop them.

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. Unless you are advocating for total anarchy in the senate, it's not going to happen.

Call your senators and demand an end to the filibuster.

[marylandblue]

49. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just saying if McConnell and Schumer get into a shoving match,

Schumer wins. That's all.

[Fiendish Thingy]

54. Except that's not true, not without the support of Manchin et al to kill filibuster.

Especially under the current organizing resolution. Republicans currently chair all committees and can block legislation from advancing.

[True Blue American]

97. Schumer made it clear

Who was in charge this week and it is not Mitch! Schumer is Majority Leader. Mitch calls himself Republican Leader but I have a strange feeling Romney is not going to let that stand much longer. Mitch is diminished because of him backing Trump right up to the riot.

The 16 Bi- Partisan Committee that is working on a bill is proof that Mitch is not all powerful any more. Decent Senators are tired of being called do nothings. And Biden knows how to compromise to get most of what he wants.

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/01/21/bipartisan-senate-group-to-meet-with-biden-aide-on-coronavirus-relief/

[Fiendish Thingy]

44. That is not true, it is much more complicated than that

Schumer can force a vote on changing the rules, but a motion to proceed to that vote can be filibustered.

Right now, the GOP runs all committees, including the hearings for Biden’s cabinet. I believe they will block any confirmation of AG/DAG to stymie any prosecutions/investigations of Trump and Insurrection collaborators.

Unless Mitch caves on a new organizing resolution, the senate will be at a standstill unless/until there are enough votes to kill the filibuster.

[marylandblue]

50. I read a long time ago that votes on rules are not subject to filibuster.

I think that is still true, and that is how the filibuster was restricted in the past.

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. The actual vote is not subject to filibuster, but the motion to proceed to a vote is.

Read this document, and you will see things are not as cut and dried as they might appear:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42929.pdf

[marylandblue]

63. Seems like that is what the nuclear option is for

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[Fiendish Thingy]

68. Yes, and to execute the nuclear option, Schumer needs Manchin, Sinema and DiFi. Nt

[marylandblue]

70. If the deadlock lasts long enough, I imagine they will come along

Although it's not inconceivable the Senate will simply be stuck forever like a bunch of old statues. Perhaps we could mount them in small Southern towns as examples for future generations.

[orangecrush]

19. Bout time

[Loki Liesmith]

26. I don't see how Schumer wins this fight

[Rstrstx]

51. The Republican way....by lying

Just give Mitch his damned filibuster requirement (we don’t have the votes anyways) and revoke it if their obstruction gets so intolerable that even the Democratic holdouts agree to it.

McConnell pretty much set this “it’s good until I say it isn’t” precedence himself when he denied Merrick Garland consideration in 2016 while allowing it for Amy Covid Barrett.

[Loki Liesmith]

71. Fair point

[intrepidity]

29. Having integrity in Congress is like bringing a knife to a gun fight

I'm sorry that I see it this way, but Rs always leverage their lack of integrity to enhance their power, and thus render integrity in Ds a liability.

It's a damned conundrum, to be sure.

[ShazzieB]

38. I think he has a plan.

Schumer is not a stupid guy, and he knows all about McConnell and how he operates. He's not about to just go in flailing.

I believe Chuck Schumer knows exactly what he's doing.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

36. I'm reading "Submit, or we will nuke you by using

our little red Nuclear Option button as needed.

[Fiendish Thingy]

42. But GOP is still chairing committees until new organizing resolution is passed

I guess it depends on how badly Joe Manchin wants to be a committee chair...

[LaMouffette]

52. I am very happy to see this! Now don't back down! Give no quarter!

This morning I started a thread titled "Chuck Schumer is too nice! He should be replaced with Michael Bennett!"

So I am thrilled to read that Chuck is standing his ground against "The Grim Reaper."

Remember that when the Dems got the 2nd-round stimulus through, McConnell was fearful that if he did not agree to the stimulus Republicans would look heartless and Loeffler and Perdue would lose their Senate seats. With the Georgia runoff election over, he does not have that fear anymore. And he was just reelected, so he doesn't fear for his own Senate seat.

So what does Mitch McConnell have to fear? How about threatening him with an investigation into why Mitch McConnell initially blocked the bill to upgrade the nation's polling machines? And looking into why only $6 million was allocated to upgrade Kentucky's machines, which do not leave a paper trail, when an estimate $75 million was needed? Could outdated polling machines be a reason why McConnell won his election with such low popularity in the state, per several polls?

From a February 2020 WFPL.org website article:

Last summer Democrats dubbed him “Moscow Mitch” after he initially blocked bills that would have shored up the nation’s election infrastructure in the wake of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

In September, McConnell relented, announcing support for $250 million in election security funding to help states improve their defenses and shore up voting systems. In the final budget, Congress sent states $425 million. That’s on top of nearly $380 million Congress set aside for election security in 2018.

According to numbers provided by Sen. McConnell’s office, Kentucky received $6 million in the most recent round of funding.

State election officials say Kentucky did not get enough to replace voting machines statewide.

Kentucky State Board of Elections Executive Director Jared Dearing says the state needs much more to replace outdated voting machines.

“Overall we are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of $75 million to $100 million to replace voting systems in this state,” Dearing said.

Direct-electronic voting systems — machines that store voting results solely on a memory card without a paper backup — became the industry standard in the wake of the 2000 presidential election, when “hanging chads” left by Florida’s pull-lever paper balloting system created headaches for election officials.

But now there’s a new industry standard amid worries about hackers being able to meddle with election data.

Threatening an investigation into Kentucky's polling machines might be a very powerful negotiating tool.

[JPK]

56. Doesn't KY use ES&S machines?

The owner is a rabid Trumper and his machines have no paper trail.

[LaMouffette]

74. Yes, thanks! I had forgotten the name of the machines and looked it up. That is correct.

I hope an investigation is done and the threat of such an investigation could be used to fight McConnell's death grip on the filibuster.

From a DCreports website article:

Why The Numbers Behind Mitch McConnell’s Re-Election Don’t Add Up
How Does an 18% Approval Rating Result in a 58% Win?

By Alison Greene

DCR
Alison Greene

On a Thursday in August in Louisville, months before the 2020 election, a parade of cars filled with Kentucky Teamster representatives and labor groups, showed their fury at Mitch McConnell’s constant blocking of critical COVID aid. They drove by McConnell’s office raucously honking and bearing signs saying “Mitch better have my money.”

In 2017, a Public Policy Polling Survey asked Kentuckians, “Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Mitch McConnell’s job performance?” Only 18% approved. He clawed his rating back up to 39% on the eve of the election.

McConnell, leader of Senate Republicans, rarely holds town hall meetings with Kentucky voters—not since a heated exchange with an angry constituent went viral.

1 out of 5 voters appear to have filled out their ballots with votes for both the female Democrat Amy McGrath and the Republican pussy-grabber Donald Trump.

So, what exactly drove these angry Kentuckians to re-elect Mitch McConnell with a 19-point advantage over opponent Amy McGrath—57.8% to 38.2%?

Even as Republicans across the country still insist that the election was rife with fraudulent Democratic votes, no one’s asking how McConnell managed one of the most lopsided landslides of the Nov. 3 election. They should. An investigation of Kentucky voting results by DCReport raises significant questions about the vote tallies in McConnell’s state.

McConnell racked up huge vote leads in traditionally Democratic strongholds, including counties that he had never before carried.
There were wide, unexplained discrepancies between the vote counts for presidential candidates and down-ballot candidates.
Significant anomalies exist in the state’s voter records. Forty percent of the state’s counties carry more voters on their rolls than voting-age citizens.

Kentucky and many other states using vote tabulation machines made by Election Systems & Software all reported down-ballot race results at significant odds with pre-election polls.

[link:https://www.dcreport.org/2020/12/19/mitch-mcconnells-re-election-the-numbers-dont-add-up/|

[TomDaisy]

58. hold fast Chuck!

[yuiyoshida]

64. Tell TURTLE TO SIT DOWN AND STFU

[Rizen]

65. I am ecstatic about the aggressive approach Biden and Dems are taking.

There's no working with the fascist, racist, assclown party. We need to bulldoze our agenda through.

[IronLionZion]

66. Mitch McConnell has become the one thing he hates most

a minority. Time for him to get a taste of his own medicine. We can start a betting pool on how long until he retires to spend more time with his family.

[True Blue American]

98. Agree!

Have said that all along. McConnell power is gone.

[kentuck]

73. What happens if Joe Manchin decides to vote with Republicans?

It's a tenuous majority.

[Cha]

76. Rt TY!

[Turin_C3PO]

85. When exactly has Schumer caved?

He’ll do what he can. He’s not all powerful.

[StarfishSaver]

92. Crickets

[Cha]

84. Yeah, & mitch knows whose

fault that Is!

[lsewpershad]

99. Do something about it.

Talk and threats mean nothing to the cons (republicons).

[BobTheSubgenius]

101. I was going to say that this is "worse" than the dilemma posited in the OP.

But it's just a part of the larger issue, and it is the sum of a lot of "worse."

Neither side is going to be able to change undecided voters with decisive action, let alone GOOD decisive action. There is none of that on the horizon, thanks to arcane but seemingly unchangeable rules.