The plaintiffs’ arguments in Moore v. United States have little basis in law — unless you think that a list of long-ago-discarded laissez-faire decisions from the early 20th century remain good law. And a decision favoring these plaintiffs could blow a huge hole in the federal budget. While no Warren-style wealth tax is on the books, the Moore plaintiffs do challenge an existing tax that is expected to raise $340 billion over the course of a decade.
But Republicans also hold six seats on the nation’s highest Court, so there is some risk that a majority of the justices will accept the plaintiffs’ dubious legal arguments. And if they do so, they could do considerable damage to the government’s ability to fund itself.
They tried changing the rules, but were blocked by Manchin and Sinema. Were you asleep at the time?
deleted by creator
Yup. Same question.
I don’t really expect an answer.
oh right I keep forgetting about that part
The Democratic Party’s ability to legislate wass brought to its knees by an administrative staffer (the parliamentarian) and enshrined themselves to be hamstrung by the filibuster.
Republicans fired the last parliamentarian that threw up a roadblock and they threw out the filibuster just for themselves to install the SCOTUS that exists now.
The rules could have always been changed and power could always have been leveraged and exercised. It is a conscious choice not to.
You really super duper don’t want to get rid of the filibuster because it’s the only thing preventing Republicans from ranking through all kinds of crazy shit
They currently control the house, and while they’ll probably lose it in '24, they will absolutely control it (and almost certainly the Senate) again some day.
If they keep the fillibuster, they should make it so you have to keep talking. Actually get up there and talk for 20 hours if you hate the bill so much.
I’d absolutely love that, personally.
The GOP will dumpster the filibuster, like they have, the moment they have the votes. The remaining effect being it only serves as a self imposed limitation by the Democratic Party.
The GOPs lack of a majority is what prevents them from passing crazy shit. The Democrats not passing anything when they have the votes, the power, or the chance is one of the largest factors in enabling the GOP into the majority.
They’ve never done this
This flies in the face of concurrent years of dem wins in the house/senate.
Mitch in 2017 for Gorsuch.
That wasn’t a fillibuster. Republicans controlled the Senate
They didn’t have the votes to beat a filibuster, so the rules were changed to lower the vote threshold to advance the SCOTUS nomination. Senate control is what allowed them to make the rule change, hence it being on then for changing the rule in 2017.
I totally thought you were talking about garland. Wow. Point conceded on that.
deleted by creator