Senate parliamentarian deals blow to Democrats' immigration plan

[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.