Mechanically what Senate Rs did was refuse to meet with the parliamentarian because they knew she’d say they couldn’t do this. That way, when they did it anyway, they could pretend they didn’t technically ignore her advice. So instead they had the presiding officer invent a new rule in the spot.
If only the Repuglican would be honest once on a while, we would have better government.
The role of the parliamentarian is to give excuses for Democrats as to why they can't do popular things that their rich donors don't want them to. It's not there to protect us from fascism. Don't worry I'm sure it will regain all its powers if Democrats ever get back in power.
Senate Ds can do this in the future with precedent. IMO, this is a net good thing. Legislatures need to legislate. Most Americans are sick of a Congress hesitant to pass laws. Yes, this one sucks. But voters get to articulate their feelings soon.
Sounds like lawsuits
Nooooo you’re supposed to let the unelected parliamentarian dictate what is and isn’t acceptable political action, this isn’t fair! 😢😢
What’s going nuclear? That’s when you have the presiding officer follow the rules of the Senate and then have the body of the Senate vote that the rule was misapplied, thus creating a new precedent to change the rules on the spot with 51 votes.
It's kinda weird to have a legislative body operate on the basis that a simple majority can set a precedent that nullifies the written (!) rules which can only be changed via a 2/3 vote. Perhaps that's rooted in common law tradition, but I don't think this is possible in many other democracies.
The thing is, requiring a 2/3 vote to change the rules is a rule that a majority can remove. Except for things that constitutionally require a different number, a majority can do anything it wants if it asserts its power. There's nobody the minority can appeal to for enforcement of the rule.
They couldn't decide that a majority can convict on an impeachment or that a majority of members are required to get a recorded vote, because those are set in the Constitution, but if they decide one day to put in a new Senate rules, there's no reason they can't. The houses set their own rules.
What if the presiding officer chooses to ignore the rules and just assert different rules? Well, then you have to follow what the presiding officer says, unless you have sufficient votes to appeal that ruling. That’s playing Calvinball, making up the rules as you go. And that’s exactly what Rs did.
I mean call it going Bunker Buster, the point is the precedent, no?
Probably a good time to torch the rest of the rules of everything since nothing matters
THROW IT ON THE PILE