quote:There might have been power sharing in the Senate, but Republicans were tyrannical in the House. They didn't have the same kind of power in the Senate, due to the rules that govern both houses of the Congress, but it's not like it mattered much.
It matters a lot when all these things are brought up to refute something else entirely. I said "I dont' expect the Republicans to be as generous with their tie-breaker this time around."
You also said there was power sharing, I wasn't sure if you were referring strictly to the Senate, or if you meant the whole Congress, as you weren't specific, especially in response to Dan's post.
That's all I was talking about, not the quote you provided.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan's post was a direct "Huh" to my use of "generous." And my use of "generous" was specifically about the Senate power-sharing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Though if I wanted to start one, I could say that power sharing in the Senate was meaningless if House Republicans continually changed legislation as it arrived from the Senate before Democrats had a crack at it, and lorded over Appropriations bills that the Senate couldn't start anyway, making the whole power sharing thing nothing but smoke and mirrors, paper tiger, flash in the pan, etc etc.
posted
If the Democrats do retain control, I can propose my filibuster reforms again without the risk of sounding like I wanted to help the party I preferred when I was in power.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'll try to dig them out later. Two quick highlights: 1) each Senator takes an oath before every speech that what he has to say is important to the consideration of the bill. No penalties or evaluation - I just want them on the hook as saying "this is important debate." 2) The filibuster must be real - that is, it halts business until it's done.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I was too hasty about Dems keeping control. From the Post:
quote:In a 50-50 Senate, Vice President Cheney could break tie votes in the GOP's favor. But a Senate that becomes evenly split after it is in session would not necessarily fall to Republicans, Senate historians said. Rules and precedents could leave a party in charge of the chamber even after its membership falls below that of the other party.
"It's what happens in January that counts," said Senate associate historian Donald A. Ritchie, referring to when party leaders hash out rules governing the chamber's organization.
Rounds's office declined to comment on the situation yesterday except for a statement from the governor, which offered prayers for Johnson and hope for "good news for our friend and colleague."
I don't take this as given - Jeffords resulted in a change in control, so "Rules and precedents could leave a party in charge of the chamber even after its membership falls below that of the other party" is clearly not absolute. And there's little or no doubt that the Republicans could force a change if they ignored precedent - one Senate cannot bind another or even itself.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what they really have to gain by it. Leadership positions in the Senate are far, far less important than they are in the House. They might just let it go.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want him to be OK but reexamine his life, decide to spend more time with his family, and resign.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want him to be okay too. He might consider his duties in the senate too important to resign until he's up for reelection, which I think is in 2008. But that's up to him and his family.
But I haven't seen this mentioned yet: Senate rules don't allow for a Senator to be removed due to being incapacitated. In other words, if he's in a coma, or is unable to perform his duties, I don't believe he can be removed and a replacement appointed. I think he has to formally resign. His lack of participation would give the Democrats a 50-49 majority.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Dan's post was a direct "Huh" to my use of "generous." And my use of "generous" was specifically about the Senate power-sharing.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
