Senate parliamentarian deals blow to Democrats' immigration plan

[tritsofme]

Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough on Sunday dealt a significant blow to Democrats' plan to provide 8 million green cards as part of a sweeping spending package, warning it doesn't comply with tight rules that determine what can be in the bill.

MacDonough's guidance, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill, likely closes the door to Democrats using the spending bill to provide a pathway to citizenship for millions of immigrants.
MacDonough, in her guidance, called the Democratic plan "by any standard a broad, new immigration policy."

"The policy changes of this proposal far outweigh the budgetary impact scored to it and it is not appropriate for inclusion in reconciliation," she wrote in the ruling obtained by The Hill.

Democrats pitched MacDonough earlier this month on their plan to use the $3.5 trillion spending bill to provide 8 million green cards for four groups of immigrants: "Dreamers," temporary protected status (TPS) holders, agricultural workers and essential workers. Getting legal permanent resident status allows an individual to eventually apply for citizenship if they can meet other qualifications.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/572956-senate-parliamentarian-deals-blow-to-democrats-immigration-reform-plan

Not surprising, it never seemed like this would qualify, but just another complication in pushing reconciliation over the finish line.

[The Magistrate]

1. They Need To Find One Who'll Rule Right, Sir

This person has no authority but that delegated by the Senate majority. Withdraw that power from this one, and find who is equal to the crisis.

'We tried, but someone serving at our pleasure wouldn't let us' is not a good line to rally a voting public with.


"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[tritsofme]

2. She is hired to faithfully interpret the rules.

If Senate Democrats don’t like the rules, they should change them.

Demonizing the parliamentarian is ridiculous.

[elleng]

5. Thanks

[triron]

6. not the point. Don't obfuscate.

[tritsofme]

8. It's the entire point. Demonizing the parliamentarian is the definition of obfuscation

She is just doing her job, senators set the rules, she interprets them.

[StarfishSaver]

15. That,'s precisely the point

[The Magistrate]

9. Putting In A New One Is Changing The Rules, Sir

I would suggest than when matters reach such a pitch I am fed to the teeth with formalism and deference to institutional tradition, a threshold has been reached.

Allowing one un-elected person you hire to balk your programs, popular programs your own voters support, is malfeasance of criminal degree. It amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[tritsofme]

10. Your criticism is absurd and ignorant.

Her job is to faithfully interpret the rules, not help advance Democratic priorities by lying about them.

Any parliamentarian hired who faithfully interprets the current rules as defined by senators would come to the same conclusion, it was not a tough call.

If senators don’t like the rules that the Senate operates under, members, not the parliamentarian, have full discretion to change them how they like, at any time.

Then they can ask the parliamentarian to interpret those rules without lying.

You just seem to be obliging the senators who would prefer to point to a scapegoat.

[The Magistrate]

11. Your View, Sir

Boils down to bring a creme horn to a gunfight.

If one side does not play by gentleman's rules, neither can.

It is the job of the Democratic majority to advance the Party's popular agenda, and whatever is an obstacle to that must be swept aside. 'Constitutional hardball' as it is phrased sometimes. Personally, I prefer an older form....


"What is not forbidden is required."

[tritsofme]

14. Again, your criticism should be aimed at senators

Not at a women for following the rules and doing her job.

Senators can choose to overrule her advice, it is all on them.

[StarfishSaver]

17. What's the point of having a parliamentarian

if they think she's only supposed to interpret the rules the way they want them to be applied?

I can't believe people here are blaming her for doing her job. Another example of how some folk on our side clearly have no problem with the Trumpian approach to politics - as long as it's our side that is engaging in the abuse.

[The Magistrate]

20. At The Risk Of Repeating Myself, Ma'am

If one side does not play by the rules, neither side can.

'We'd love to help you out, but a person who serves at our pleasure says we can't' is not a winning message at the polls.

'Senate rules' are hardly part of the country's foundation, and no one owes them the slightest degree of loyalty. Certainly no one should value them to the point where one asks with Mr. Lincoln are all the laws to go un-executed save one? Because formalist adherence to this person's interpretation of rules will bring about the authoritarian rule of the christo-fascist right, as sure as night follows day.


"What is not forbidden is required."

[StarfishSaver]

22. Yes, I read what you wrote previously.

Last edited Mon Sep 20, 2021, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

It makes no more sense in the repetition than it did when you first wrote it.

The point of a parliamentarian is to tell Senators what the rules mean and what powers they can and can't legally exercise under those rules. Firing them because they don't like how they interpret the rules and replacing them with someone who tells them the rules mean and that the rules allow them to do whatever they want to do is not changing the rules.

If the Senate doesn't like how the parliamentarian interprets the rules, they should change the rules to do exactly what they want or to eliminate the parliamentarian altogether.

Your argument otherwise doesn't make any logical or practical sense, regardless how often you may repeat it.

This consternation about the parliamentarian and instructions about how Senate Dems should deal with her is rather amusing given that the people engaging on it have likely never paid attention to previous rulings (pretty much every piece of legislation and every vote is weighed on by the parliamentarian) but gets their shorts in a bunch once or twice a year when they hear in the media about a ruling they don't like - and then they demand that the Senate Democrats remove her.

But I'll bet not one of the people here making such a demand has paid any attention to her previous rulings (except that one or two previous ones they heard something about, disagreed with, and got mad about), has bothered to read the legislation she's ruling on and has any idea at all what the rules and laws she applied even say.

And yet, they are demanding that the Senate fire her and get someone else to re-interpret the rules, legislation and laws they don't know and haven't read.

Interesting.

[The Magistrate]

24. We Are At A Point, Ma'am

Where I must, with some regret, state simply that you are wrong, and are urging a disastrous course.

[StarfishSaver]

26. Right back atcha, my dear

[tritsofme]

28. No, she laid out facts, any ignorance on your part notwithstanding.

[FBaggins]

30. Re: that disastrous course

How do you see that playing out?

It seems obvious to me:

1: Schumer replaces parliamentarian with one who will rule the way we want… and it occurs.

2: The chair/VP implements the decision

3: A single Republican objects and calls for a vote to confirm the decision

4: either a: A majority votes it down and nothing is gained or
b: all 50 Democrats (+the VP) vote to uphold the decisions (and thus violate the law)

4b continued - the courts put the vote (and thus the reconciliation package) on hold for months and then overturn the decision. Nothing is gained AND we can’t pass anything else because it’s now too late.

Why not just obey the law and get what we can get with the votes we have?

[tritsofme]

33. I don't believe it is correct that courts can strike down a law based on noncompliance with

reconciliation rules. The Byrd Rule relies on senators to identify extraneous provisions and challenge them.

My understanding is that a reconciliation bill, once duly enacted through bicameralism and presentment, cannot be struck down on this basis.

[Devil Child]

32. I wish this post could be pinned to the top of the page

The outrage over this baffles me and the proposed "solutions" by the outraged scare me.

Thank you StarfishSaver for taking the time to patiently and eloquently express your take on this.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Putting in a new parliamentarian to interpret the rules the way you want

because you don't like the way the current one is interpreting them is exactly the opposite of changing the rules.

[FBaggins]

21. Absolutely correct - but it's also worth nothing that this isn't just "interpreting the rules"

That would be the case if, for instance, a proposed filibuster carve-out for voting rights legislation were the subject of discussion.

But the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 isn't merely a "rule" that the Senate can change. If 51 votes were to overrule the parliamentarian and the reconciliation package were to somehow pass... the courts could undo the entire thing (depending on severability)

[StarfishSaver]

25. Yes and no

You're right - the Parliamentarian does have to interpret laws, but that is part of their responsibility for interpreting what powers the Senate has under its rules.

In this instance, the Parliamentarian is interpreting what the Senate rules allow the Senate to do under its reconciliation powers. She ruled that granting leniency to millions of immigrants was not simply a budget matter, which the reconciliation powers is limited to, but was a “tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.” She also states that such a move would set a precedent allowing future Senates (i.e., Republican controlled) to easily and summarily strip immigrants of their legal status using the same type of procedural measure.

[FBaggins]

27. All true

I just meant that the comments about firing the parliamentarian or having the VP overrule her - which are always a distraction without 51 votes to “go nuclear” - are particularly misguided in this case because the Senate was given the power to make their own rules. They weren’t given the power to ignore the law.

[StarfishSaver]

29. These arguments are ridiculous

Another example proving that some Democrats don't really mind laws being abused and rules being flouted. They just want it to be Democrats doing it for our own ends.

[FBaggins]

31. You say "ridiculous" - I say "deadly"

You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.
Let's call the whole thing off

[StarfishSaver]

13. Thank you

[Devil Child]

23. Thank your for the sane and logical take tritsofme

[ColinC]

4. Absolutely agreed.

[Walleye]

3. Filibuster is now killabuster

[PoliticAverse]

7. Completely expected. Did the Democrats have 50 votes for that proposal? n/t

[The Magistrate]

12. That Is A Good Question, Sir

I suspect it would not be put up for a ruling if passage was not anticipated by the leadership, but if the votes are not there for the measure, they would not be there for over-ruling the functionary either. Which would make this a poor choice for a showdown.

But a showdown on this there must be, and soon.

[PoliticAverse]

18. Perhaps the leadership knows they don't have the 50 votes and were looking for the Parliamentarian

to take the heat for failure of the measure to pass. We know they don't have the votes to override any filibuster on this issue.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

19. Sens. Durbin and Padilla say they have a plan B following the Senate parliamentarian's ruling

Link to tweet