Good argument here that underscore’s Pelosi’s point above. Immigration hardliners in Congress want to stop immigration. If they thought the best way to to do that was to build the wall, they’d trade concessions in order to get Democratic support for the wall. But they won’t because the wall is a shit idea and they’d be fools to trade anything valuable for it. So there will be no deal and the wall won’t happen and eventually the pain of the shutdown will force him to the table. The vote on the 20th was pure political theater.
I feel your pain. I have at least one brother who probably deserves the Armando treatment upon death. I can only hope at some point he has an Ebenezer Scrooge moment and learns to live his life in a better way. He isn’t evil or a huge Trump fan, but he just doesn’t seem to understand a different point of view. He is the guy who points to the black person who is pro-Trump or pro-GOP and wonders what is wrong with other blacks.
I assume that if on Jan 3rd the new democratically controlled house votes in a new CR (again without the wall), and the senate approves it, that Trump will veto it?
Given the position that will put Trump in, why would McConnell even allow it to come to a vote?
Because then the blame would rest squarely on the GOP’s shoulders. Why not allow it to fall on Trump, where it belongs. Besides, I don’t think the GOP is all in for this shut down like Trump is.
Because McConnell isn’t ready to retire yet, and going against the President so confrontationally basically means he’s fine with Trump calling him out, supporting a primary opponent, etc.
McConnell is a lapdog, I have my doubts that he’ll go against the President.
He’s not going to sacrifice himself for Trump. If something is sufficiently popular, he will vote for it even if Trump doesn’t like it. See: Russia sanctions and NATO solidarity votes.
Can’t the house just pass what the Senate already passed, thus negating the need for the Senate to do anything at all?
This I don’t know. Does proposed legislation survive different terms or whatever a year is called?
Yes, i believe that it does.
If that’s the case, then yeah, I imagine the very first thing Pelosi will do is pass the Senate’s bill.
What Trump does then is anyone’s guess, including his. Cabinet members Hannity and Coulter will tell him to veto it, of course.
No. Once Congress adjourn at the end of its two year session, any bills that are not yet laws will die.
Otherwise it would be pure chaos. Imagine a divided Congress after an election where both houses flip. The Senate passes a bunch of bills for the next House to approve, meanwhile the House passes a bunch of contradictory laws for the next Senate to approve…
Lap turtle.
Yeah, that’s how pocket vetoes work.
Doesn’t sound that chaotic to me. They pass contradictory bills all the time. That’s what reconciliation is for.
Reconciliation is used when the House and Senate language in a law doesn’t match up.
But you could have a law passed with the same language by the current House and previous Senate, and simultaneously a contradictory law passed with the same language by the current Senate and previous House. For both laws, the language was approved by one of the Houses and one of the Senates, so reconciliation is not an option.
Furthermore, if you don’t kill a bill when the session expires, then any old language could be revived. So maybe Pelosi votes on a law that Reid’s Senate passed.
Meanwhile McConnell decides that it’s time to finally vote on a law passed by the Jacksonian House in the 19th century…
I was mistaken then.
I’m not sure that such a thing has ever happened. It would need a very weird set of circumstances for such a thing to happen.
This Twitter thread is… well… I know I shouldn’t feed trolls with clicks, but wow.