McConnell Has Lots Of Decisions To Make

[mark46]

1) his role in passing an immediate COVID bill
(personally, I favor passing a bill that focuses only on distribution of the vaccine, while they spend some time on the stimulus)

2) how fast to act on Biden's appointments
(he could push them through, or force Biden to put Acting folks in charge)

3) how to vote on impeachment
(presumably, he has the influence to assure conviction or to assure acquittal)
(conviction would be a huge plus for McConnell, reducing the power of the Trumpers)

4) how much to cooperate with Biden on critical legislation
(he can control whether almost any bills get the required 60 votes)

 

[Goonie]

personally, I favor passing a bill that focuses only on distribution of the virus,

You might want to edit.

 

[SimplyMe]

I think you are forgetting that McConnell will not be Senate Majority leader much longer. While he still has some decisions to make, he won't be able to stop or slow down Biden's appointments. He can use the filibuster to stop, or slow, legislation (such as Coronavirus relief), or to attempt to force Democrats to compromise on some issues.

And I would hope McConnell does not want to cause "distribution of the virus." It sounded funny, though I'm sure you meant distribution of the vaccine.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

If I’m Schumer, I wouldn’t let the threat of a filibuster scare me out of legislation, especially COVID relief. If Republicans want to hold up the bill, make them stand on the Senate floor and read out of the phone book. The optics will look great on the nightly news as people are suffering, Republicans are reading recipes out of a Julia Child’s cookbook to stop anything from going through.

 

[mark46]

You might want to edit.

 

[mark46]

If I’m Schumer, I wouldn’t let the threat of a filibuster scare me out of legislation, especially COVID relief. If Republicans want to hold up the bill, make them stand on the Senate floor and read out of the phone book. The optics will look great on the nightly news as people are suffering, Republicans are reading recipes out of a Julia Child’s cookbook to stop anything from going through.

I might mention that a least one Democrat would have no interest in a 2 trillion dollar bill that spends a lot more than might be necessary at the present time. There is no reasons for the Republicans to agree to a Democratic wish list.

The optics are fine. There is no election for two years. The Republicans can propose a counter proposal that includes specific portions of the Democratic bill, indicating that they would support most sections, including their exact language.

You seem to believe that the Democratic bill would acceptable and doesn't include poison pills. I find that unlikely.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My take...

1) It would serve any politician well to act quickly on Covid measures regardless of party.

2) Being that the GOP won't have control of the senate, GOP opposition won't be a factor for Biden appointments. At this point, Joe Manchin (being a more moderate democrat, and often at odds over agendas with his own party) stands to be more of a "deal-breaker" sort of Senator than McConnell will.

3) the GOP allowed themselves to fall into a "lose-lose" trap with regards to the impeachment.

Anyone who votes against punitive measures (like disqualification from holding office) is going to be castigated by the left and portrayed as being complicit in the Capital riots (even if they staunchly denounced it) -- However, in many states, a vote for the punitive measures is basically a death sentence for a GOP senator and is likely to subject them to a intra-party primary challenge the next time they're up for election.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

If I’m Schumer, I wouldn’t let the threat of a filibuster scare me out of legislation,

Do they even have a filibuster? Didn't they keep whatever Harry Reid did on it?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Do they even have a filibuster? Didn't they keep whatever Harry Reid did on it?

For budget reconciliation, I have no memory of it ever existing. Harry Reid removed it for judicial picks except for the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell remove it for Supreme. court picks. For normal legislation it still exists.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

For budget reconciliation, I have no memory of it ever existing. Harry Reid removed it for judicial picks except for the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell remove it for Supreme. court picks. For normal legislation it still exists.

Thanks!

 

[SimplyMe]

For budget reconciliation, I have no memory of it ever existing. Harry Reid removed it for judicial picks except for the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell remove it for Supreme. court picks. For normal legislation it still exists.

My understanding, Reid dropped the filibuster for most presidential appointees -- other than Supreme Court justices. As such, McConnell can do nothing to prevent Pres-Elect Biden's cabinet appointees from being confirmed.

 

[Pommer]

My understanding, Reid dropped the filibuster for most presidential appointees -- other than Supreme Court justices. As such, McConnell can do nothing to prevent Pres-Elect Biden's cabinet appointees from being confirmed.

Because of the Vice-President’s tie breaking vote?

 

[SimplyMe]

Because of the Vice-President’s tie breaking vote?

That and the fact that McConnell will no longer be the House majority leader, so can no longer prevent things from being voted on.

 

[mark46]

I think you are forgetting that McConnell will not be Senate Majority leader much longer. While he still has some decisions to make, he won't be able to stop or slow down Biden's appointments. He can use the filibuster to stop, or slow, legislation (such as Coronavirus relief), or to attempt to force Democrats to compromise on some issues.

And I would hope McConnell does not want to cause "distribution of the virus." It sounded funny, though I'm sure you meant distribution of the vaccine.

When Obama was president, McConnell did alot to slow down to slow down approvals of nominations. There is a lot that he can do.

 

[mark46]

For budget reconciliation, I have no memory of it ever existing. Harry Reid removed it for judicial picks except for the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell remove it for Supreme. court picks. For normal legislation it still exists.

There are several bills that don't require 60 votes. Obamacare was passed under such an exception.

 

[SimplyMe]

When Obama was president, McConnell did alot to slow down to slow down approvals of nominations. There is a lot that he can do.

Not really. McConnell used the filibuster to slow down approvals, which is why Reid got rid of the filibuster for nominations. It is how McConnell got all of Trump's appointment's through -- including some very questionable judicial nominations (per the ABA); despite strong objection from Democrats.

McConnell will have the same issue Democrats had in the Senate under Trump, he has no meaningful way to block nominations by Pres. Biden -- including Supreme Court picks, since he got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

 

[mark46]

Not really. McConnell used the filibuster to slow down approvals, which is why Reid got rid of the filibuster for nominations. It is how McConnell got all of Trump's appointment's through -- including some very questionable judicial nominations (per the ABA); despite strong objection from Democrats.

McConnell will have the same issue Democrats had in the Senate under Trump, he has no meaningful way to block nominations by Pres. Biden -- including Supreme Court picks, since he got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.

So, you are saying that Biden will get all of his appointments passed in the next couple of weeks? Surely not. What you say is certainly true. McConnell cannot BLOCK any appointments. However, there are many, many procedural ways to slow down nominations. The most obvious are requiring testimony (30 hours minimum I think) and hearings on all nominees, requiring lots of procedural votes, and lots of roll call votes.

I guess this matters little, since Biden can run the government with acting appointees as Trump has done.

I know that lefties believe the an pass what they want, since the Democrats are in control, but that isn't the case for Biden, any more than it was true for Trump.

 

[SimplyMe]

So, you are saying that Biden will get all of his appointments passed in the next couple of weeks? Surely not. What you say is certainly true. McConnell cannot BLOCK any appointments. However, there are many, many procedural ways to slow down nominations. The most obvious are requiring testimony (30 hours minimum I think) and hearings on all nominees, requiring lots of procedural votes, and lots of roll call votes.

I guess this matters little, since Biden can run the government with acting appointees as Trump has done.

I know that lefties believe the an pass what they want, since the Democrats are in control, but that isn't the case for Biden, any more than it was true for Trump.

I'm not a Democrat nor do I believe the Democrats can "pass what they want." Yes, McConnell can delay, to a degree, Biden's nominations but he has no power to stop them. I suspect McConnell will filibuster some of the bills that Democrats try to pass and I sincerely hope that Democrats do not remove filibusters altogether.

 

[JSRG]

There are several bills that don't require 60 votes. Obamacare was passed under such an exception.

What exception? As far as I understand, they still needed 60 votes to pass it. It's just they had an unusually strong Democratic majority (59 if you count Bernie Sanders) and thus were able to hit the 60-vote requirement to bypass the filibuster by enlisting the Independent Joe Liebermann in exchange for some changes to the law.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

There are several bills that don't require 60 votes. Obamacare was passed under such an exception.

What exception? As far as I understand, they still needed 60 votes to pass it. It's just they had an unusually strong Democratic majority (59 if you count Bernie Sanders) and thus were able to hit the 60-vote requirement to bypass the filibuster by enlisting the Independent Joe Liebermann in exchange for some changes to the law.

It’s a simple majority to pass bills in the Senate but you need 60 votes to end debate and hold the vote. If it’s a bill you really don’t want and know the other side has 51 votes you can talk the bill to death as long as you have 40 senators who agree with you. In recent years just the threat of fillibustering is enough to keep bills from the floor.