RichVR
1950
Crap. Looks like infrastructure week will be delayed indefinitely.
Actually, after reading the comment (shivers) it doesn’t look too bad:
Canuck
1952
Yeah I have no problems with it. Dems don’t have the majority, they have the tiebreaker vote. Sure the Republicans would probably do something shitty bit just because they’re evil doesn’t mean we get to be.
As long as McConnell can’t single-handedly prevent stuff from moving to the floor for votes, I’m good.
dtolman
1954
There are a lot of folks on twitter who rely on ginned-up outrage to build their respective brands.
Tim_N
1956
They’re probably scarred from seeing the GOP renege on every established tradition or norm when it increases their power or influence to any degree, and then seeing the Dems continue to treat them fairly. I’m not arguing one way or the other, but I can at least understand this viewpoint.
Of course, the iron law of social media is that for every event or outcome that occurs someone somewhere is upset and writing about it.
Yes, the only possible downside is it makes any issue being considered by a committee vulnerable to the defection of one Democratic member. So they’re going to need party discipline, but they need anyway to ultimately advance the legislation.
A good question answered:
Matt_W
1960
He has never had this power. Individual Senators retain a significant amount of procedural power in the Senate. The Leader’s control over the Senate agenda is mostly by consent and convention.
The rules for how committee members are assigned are called an “organizing resolution” and voted on by the Senate at the beginning of a new session (usually by unanimous consent.) This Senate hasn’t voted yet, but probably will tomorrow. Here’s a good primer from Roll Call
In that article they talk about “filling the amendment tree” which is a procedural way that the majority leader does exercise significant control over how amendments are offered on a bill. This is a fascinating read (for some definitions of fascinating) on this subject.
It’s close enough, in practice (see Merrick Garland).
Yes, you keep reminding us of this. But when people say, “McConnell keeps the Senate from voting on bills” they don’t mean that he single-handedly acts as a dictator. They mean that his leadership and control of his caucus prevents these things from coming up for a vote. They mean that bills that would pass with 51 or 52 votes, most of them Democrats, are blocked by the GOP majority, which is controlled by McConnell and is following McConnell’s strategy.
He will still be able to keep his caucus in line to some degree (though perhaps recent events will see it become a bit more unruly) and they will still block a lot of things Dems want to do unless the filibuster is removed, but now appointments will be referred out of committee rather than blocked. Bills that Dems can get sufficient support for will be referred out of committee rather than buried there. I’m sure there are bills McConnell could craft that would get 52 or 53 senators voting for them, mostly Republicans, but now the focus will be on the opposite balance, which is good, because almost anything that most Republicans support is going to be bad for the country.
Compared to the position he’s been in, McConnell has far less power now, and that is a good thing. There’s a president willing to sign bills that narrowly pass, so there’s a point to voting on something the broader GOP doesn’t support, the committees are controlled by Democrats, so anything they want a vote on can get to the floor through normal procedure, the loss of both chambers and the Presidency means that the GOP is left clinging to “healing” and “bipartisanship” as their complaints, rather than “elections have consequences”, and the recent events (even prior to the insurrection) have likely driven a wedge in the party that will make discipline even harder to come by. That doesn’t mean Collins or Romney or Murkowski are going to vote for a bunch of liberal policies, but it might mean they are unwilling to fall in line for the sake of party when they personally find the compromise offered is an acceptable one.
Matt_W
1963
Unless it’s under reconciliation rules, bills require 60 votes. That’s the point. I keep bringing it up because people fundamentally misunderstand the role of the Leader, do indeed attribute power to McConnell specifically that he doesn’t have, and are going to be disappointed when Schumer also doesn’t have that power.
Timex
1964
You mean they require 60 votes to end debate, if someone wants to keep debating.
There are plenty of bills that will get enough votes for cloture but less than 60 votes to pass. And again, McConnell has the power, not because of statute or formal rules, but because he controlled the majority caucus. Schumer will also have the power to dictate the agenda of the Senate, though he will need to compromise on many things unless the filibuster is eliminated.
Matt_W
1966
Merrick Garland’s nomination was stuck in committee. The Judiciary Committee never held a vote on it and never referred it out to the Senate. This had nothing to do with any power of the Leader.
‘Influence’ is a power, though.
Do you think that if Mitch McConnell wanted a vote on the floor for Merrick Garland, that it would’ve made it out of committee? (The answer is yes, it would have.)
