Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

[Tero]

Why isn't there a filibuster thread yet? The whole thing started when senators talked forever, and there was no rule to cut off discussion. Thus they came up with the 60 vote rule to bring the matter to an end. The yapping. But the 60 is arbitrary. 51 is enough.

 

[Venom]

Why isn't there a filibuster thread yet? The whole thing started when senators talked forever, and there was no rule to cut off discussion. Thus they came up with the 60 vote rule to bring the matter to an end. The yapping. But the 60 is arbitrary. 51 is enough.

Good recent discussion related to the filibuster here

 

[Tero]

OK

 

[Aridas]

I assume it's because nobody's getting narrowly-focused "small" infrastructure bills to a floor vote. Instead it's this multi-trillion-dollar thing, one of those "we have to pass it to see what's in it" bills.

I bet if the Dems started flooding the floor with ten-bridges-at-a-time infrastructure bills, Republicans would both find it much harder to defend opposing those bills, and find it easy enough to arrange a satisfactory horse-trading/pork-barreling/kickbacking scheme.

22,000 ten-bridges at a time infrastructure bills just to address the current issues with repairs there? That's before getting to all the rest of the basic infrastructure priorities? To be clear, your suggestion does sound nice, it's just woefully inadequate and doesn't actually present a better solution than a multi-trillion-dollar thing, one of those "we have to pass it to see what's in it" bills. More could be said there, but, frankly, the real problem at hand really should be easy to spot. To raise an simple example of such, even when it comes to disaster relief, Republican politicians, seemingly as a matter of course, are happy to raise utterly inane objections to blue state disaster relief and vote against it, while embracing red state disaster relief. Democrats, on the other hand, fairly reliably vote in favor of reasonable relief for both red and blue states. In short, Republican politicians are rarely actually acting for the good of the country in such matters, while Democrats keep trying to act for the good of the country. Going even further, though, when a notable national Republican strategy has been specifically to try to hurt blue states and then blame the damage that they're causing on the Democrats, so that the less politically aware will get angry at the Democrats and vote Republican, it's pretty safe to say that there's something very, very seriously wrong with the current Republican party.

 

[Tero]

Governor Kristi Noem tweeted

@govkristinoem
Gas prices are skyrocketing. Gas shortages are hitting parts of America.

We knew this would happen when President Biden cancelled the Keystone XL Pipeline and reversed our America-first energy policies.

They really like to pick on Keystone. The fuel made from it runs big diesels. Almost none is used here. It does not work in trucks and is not used in power plants. If it were, it would be close to coal in what you get out of it. But coal is cheaper and requires no pipeline that is under pressure to get the stuff flowing. I like coal going through my state, because if the train falls over, you just scoop it back.

 

[Tero]

“But definitely in the second half of this first year, the almost-mantras of the Republican party have gained hold: he’s too old, he’s a socialist, and then this whole ‘Let’s go, Brandon’ thing. Plus the fact that they’ve been able to successfully block the bigger initiatives so not only a socialist, but a socialist who can’t succeed, is the message.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/17/republicans-biden-bogeyman-demonizations-attack

Not forgetting:
-vaccine
-he caused inflation (presidents can do little here)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Trump bullied members of his party who opposed his agenda so ruthlessly that many didn’t run for re-election. Has Biden said a single negative thing about Sinema or Manchin?

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1481730030942183429?cxt=HHwWioCztZrnlJApAAAA

The bully pulpit is one of the few things Biden has that the obstructionist Congress or SCOTUS can't take away from him. Seeing as he has 0% chance of passing any legislation and any creative executive orders will be shot down in the courts, why not take it for a spin?

 

[BobTheCoward]

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1481730030942183429?cxt=HHwWioCztZrnlJApAAAA

Thank you for this endorsement of being nice to Sinema and Machin.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So you're saying that Dems need to write bills that are basically Republican policies.

They tried that with the ACA it didn't help.

 

[Delvo]

any creative executive orders will be shot down in the courts

I don't believe the ones I have in mind would be. Maybe the ones I have in mind aren't in the "creative" category you have in mind. And in some cases, by the time the ruling was given, the thing would already have been done anyway. But either way, for the rest, he doesn't know until he tries, and he doesn't get any electoral benefit unless he tries. The only real reason he's doing nothing is because he doesn't want to do anything. (Remember when his supporters claimed that that was a point in his favor?)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't believe the ones I have in mind would be. Maybe the ones I have in mind aren't in the "creative" category you have in mind. And in some cases, by the time the ruling was given, the thing would already have been done anyway. But either way, for the rest, he doesn't know until he tries, and he doesn't get any electoral benefit unless he tries. The only real reason he's doing nothing is because he doesn't want to do anything. (Remember when his supporters claimed that that was a point in his favor?)

I don't really see any harm in trying. All this is hypothetical because there hasn't been much to indicate that Biden is even open to this type of active role. Seems to me we're on auto-pilot until he gets absolutely washed in the 2024 election.

 

[JoeMorgue]

**** it. Go full on Andrew Jackson (well I mean not the genocide and dueling part...).

When the courts shoot it down just go "The Courts have made their decision. Now let's see them enforce it."

"Good for the goose" has to start applying the Right's "I can do anything I want until someone stop's me" method.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

*Shrugs* Prove me wrong then.

You and any random Trumper both think the system is too broken for your side to win so the only answer is tearing it down so your side can take control after the fact. You both are unconcerned bordering on gleeful at the idea of collateral damage. You both have that same "I know what I'm saying is going to get a negative response" chips on your shoulders.

The only difference is the nouns.

**** it. Go full on Andrew Jackson (well I mean not the genocide and dueling part...).

When the courts shoot it down just go "The Courts have made their decision. Now let's see them enforce it."

"Good for the goose" has to start applying the Right's "I can do anything I want until someone stop's me" method.

Welcome to the radical progressive insurgency.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

**** it. Go full on Andrew Jackson (well I mean not the genocide and dueling part...).

When the courts shoot it down just go "The Courts have made their decision. Now let's see them enforce it."

"Good for the goose" has to start applying the Right's "I can do anything I want until someone stop's me" method.

I dunno, sounds a bit too Trumpy for me /s

 

[Delvo]

I gather that there have been eras of American history in which Supreme Court rulings have been considered just "advisory" rather than absolutely The Law, but...

1. We're not in such an era right now, so suddenly switching to that mode now would look... umm... bad.
2. The legalistic justification for it seems flimsy. It's been pointed out that the Constitution describes the Supreme Court's job with the phrase "advize and consent", which does not imply the ability to stop the other branches from doing stuff, but, if sometimes stopping the other branches from doing stuff weren't part of the job, then there wouldn't have been much of a point in Constitutionally defining a supreme court in the first place, so just its existence points toward that being what it's about.

So although just ignoring their daffier or more hostile-to-the-peasants rulings would get us better results in those individual cases where we did that, it would be contributing to the rot & collapse of the overall system.

 

[bruto]

They tried that with the ACA it didn't help.

A perfect storm for the Republicans. They got to screw up the bill royally and then rant about how screwed up it was. It seems few people remember how much of the ACA was a compromise based on Republican blackmail. Ultimately it was probably a dumb move, but as so often, one side was acting in good faith and the other not. The Republicans got to vote against a bill and to criticize it later for the flaws they had built into it.

The problem in dealing with those who have no honor is that one cannot win against them without becoming one of them, and the proposal here seems much the same.

 

[Tero]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Again, Trump is bad because he wants bad things. His political tactics were good. It's not even a subjective question, the proof is in how quickly and completely he has dominated the right wing political scene.

It would be good for someone on the liberal/progressive side to come along and upset the apple cart. The enthusiasm gap is huge and we have to catch up fast.

What exactly do you see as the alternative that doesn't just end where Biden is now?

Trump had no good tactics. He was good at getting the base to support pretty much anything and make a big noise. But he could have done a lot more harm. he did not, because he had no idea what to do with congress. Mitch got the one bill, a tax cut that was not funded by cuts in spending, to go through.

All else was executive orders, like Obama. If Mitch had wanted, a lot more would have been passed. Well, McCain was a problem.

 

[theprestige]

**** it. Go full on Andrew Jackson (well I mean not the genocide and dueling part...).

When the courts shoot it down just go "The Courts have made their decision. Now let's see them enforce it."

"Good for the goose" has to start applying the Right's "I can do anything I want until someone stop's me" method.

It wouldn't be the courts, it would be the legislature and/or the voters. If Congress isn't on his side when he tries to defy the court, he'll get impeached. And if the voters aren't on his side, he'll be ousted at the polls. Probably so will everyone who was on his side. He'd have to take to the bully pulpit pretty hard, and get a tidal wave of public support, before trying anything like it.

Or just refuse to leave office and see what happens next. Probably the Acting President, post-impeachment, would order the military to remove him from wherever he was holed up, while going about the business of the executive branch from literally anywhere else.

I find it ironic that, after eight years of people insisting that Bush was going to make himself god-emperor and nothing happened, and four more years of people saying Trump was going to make himself god-emperor and nothing happened, the thing that occurs to you is that Biden needs to make himself god-emperor for some reason. Some almost certainly very stupid reason.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

was going to make himself god-emperor and nothing happened

Not for lack of trying.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I find it ironic that...

No you don't.