McConnell and Schumer Agreement on Committees/Rules

[emailking]

I remember during the Kavanaugh hearings there was all this talk that McConnel could just bring it to the floor even if the Judiciary Committee vote failed. Does it even matter how many seats Dems have as long as they chair? I guess they could get more speaking and question time. But even if a bill fails committee because a Dem is out sick or something, Schumer can just bring it to the floor anyway, right?

[emailking]

How are the committees voting on Biden's cabinet nominees without this? Or does it only matter for legislation?

[emailking]

What I read is that Republicans are still chairing the committees.

Apparently the holdup is that McConnell wants the resolution to preserve the filibuster (it hasn't been part of the Organizing Resolution in the past).

[emailking]

Feinstein was one of the last ones to change her mind on the Judicial filibuster but she finally threw in the towel because the GOP was blocking everything. She'll probably have a breaking point in terms of the legislative filibuster too.

[emailking]

I believe filibuster reform has always been about removing the procedural filibuster. The talking filibuster would not be eliminated.

[emailking]

They can do like McConnell did with Supreme Court justices and specifically exclude the filibuster from applying to the admission of new states.

Or they could put it in the reconciliation bill and overrule the parliamentarian on a simple majority vote.

DC statehood is a 100% lock to happen if all 50 Democrats want it to, and it doesn't require complete abolition of the filibuster.

There's still a filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, the threshold to break is just 51 votes instead of 60. Lowering it was the nuclear option, as it would be if lowered for admission of new states. You need Manchin and Sinema to vote to overrule the parliamentarian. If you have them for a de facto nuclear option like that, you probably have them for the actual nuclear option...unless they think it will save face to hide it through a sketchy parliamentary trick like that.

[emailking]

Manchin and Sinema support DC statehood, so just make DC a state to minimize their votes.

The problem is that even if Manchin and Sinema support it, DC statehood can't happen while there's still a filibuster.

It can be done through reconciliation

It can be done by lowering the filibuster threshold too. I mean, it's a de facto nuclear option. DC statehood is obviously not a budget bill.

[emailking]

Nope. Because if you stubbornly abide by ancient pieces of parchment authored by long dead slaveowners, there's a very real chance the current predicament will end in disaster. Now, you're free to wager all of our futures on that chance, and hope for the best. (Unfortunately, "moderate" voices aren't looking so good, post-insurrection.) Who knows, maybe it'll all work out. But I would rather rely on realpolitik. There's no possible way WY can ever defend its undemocratic privilege against CA. Not economically, not technologically, not militarily, etc. So when the people of CA insist that the current system needs to end, it will end. Simple as that.

Then you're talking about overthrowing the Constitution. Because there's no legal exception to its rules, even when you really, really, really don't like them.

[emailking]

A Constitutional Convention is the right way to form a new Constitution if that is what you want to see happen. Your scenario is undemocratic and uncivilized.

[emailking]

Some of hers/his were deleted too.