An objection is more powerful than a vote, apparently, in the senate.
Truth seeking is a time consuming endeavor when the truth is being hidden, institutionally, by almost everyone. That’s why I was happy to stumble across this Jimmy Dore video, where he points out Senator Bernie could have objected to the Trump agenda then, just as Senator Manchin, democrat, is objecting to the Biden agenda now.
Jimmy makes a good point but it needs further clarification.
One objection from a democratic senator against Trump would have changed the majority from 51 to 60, effectively defeating anything he wanted to do, and did, like his big tax cuts, his great wall, and his conservative court. His entire agenda could have been defeated by one senator objecting, but none did.
Trump confirmed three Supreme Court justices without objection. Any democratic senator could have forced a 60 vote threshold for those judicial confirmations but none did. All of the democrats voted against all of the nominees but none of them objected, apparently, so they were all confirmed. It’s a perfect example of self-sabotage by the democrats to serve the conservative agenda, by not reciprocating with the rules.
Everybody is blaming rule 22 and the need to close debate with a sixty vote threshold. It’s all because of an accidental rule change by Aaron Burr, they say, in 1806 and blah blah blah. That’s all a distraction.
I’ve been enjoying all of the misguided opinions about the filibuster and possibly shared a few of my own. It’s all a distraction from the main point, which is a supermajority of one is an intentional senate rule that violates the constitution. It’s absurd and illegal and it’s true.
Senate rule 8.1 is the problem in need of correction.
I knew one senator could object to anything from proceeding but I got distracted down a rabbit-hole of professional deception. I found myself wasting my time chasing down establishment disinformation to counterpoint. As seen in the three previous filibuster posts.
So I took another look at the senate rules and sure enough, one senator can object to consideration of just about anything, using rule eight.
RULE VIII
ORDER OF BUSINESS
.. bills and resolutions that are not objected to shall be taken up in their order, ..
Like most legalese, the language is up for interpretation and loopholes could be found to get around it. Alternative interpretations could allow bills to be debated and brought to a vote where majority rule prevails.
The rule could be interpreted to allow the chair to bring up the bill “later in the order” and declare that it proceeds directly to a majority vote, for instance. It’s all about interpretation.
But alas, the senate democrats don’t even have unity within their own caucus. Even though they have enough democratic senators they still don’t have a majority, which has been a Democratic Party problem for a long time. Despite preaching unity they are rarely united themselves, on much of anything.
The Democratic Party seem to always be just a few votes shy of victory, for the public. If the republicans can’t beat ‘um outright, then enough democrats will step forward to facilitate democratic failure.
If the republicans win a victory the public loses. If the democrats win a victory for the public, it’s because the republicans won as well.
Republicans don’t like voters.
The For the People voting rights will be a perfect example of intentional failure by democrats. If the Bill included a new computer server and a tech savvy staff in every congressional district, to facilitate electoral reform, it could be called infrastructure.
They can pass it with a majority vote, so says the parliamentarian, lol.
The democrats won’t likely include a citizen network into the infrastructure bill to revolutionize our democracy, that’s a bet. They will keep voting rights separate to ensure it fails, by rule. Just in case infrastructure passes, they’ll know meaningful voting rights won’t.
The states are all pushing voter suppression, they say.
The Democratic Party is full of double agents ready to conspire with republicans against the public, democracy, and the common good.
The filibuster is a perfect example of establishment collusion against the public. That includes both parties and virtually every organization that dispenses information. They all rationalize that the vauguely defined filibuster is a valid legal tactic despite characterizing it as derived from a legislative accident that ultimately violates constitutional intent.
The establishment says the filibuster supermajority is caused by the need to close debate. That is not true. The truth is senate rule 8.1 allows for an objection to proceed to the debate. That senate rule violates the majority rule intention of the constitution. If a senate rule obstructs constitutional intention, it’s illegal.
Senate Rule 8.1 needs to be rewritten for constitutional compliance:
RULE VIII
ORDER OF BUSINESS
.. bills and resolutions shall be taken up in their order, ..
And with that one rule change it would take 60 votes to obstruct, instead of 60 votes to proceed. A supermajority would be necessary to sustain an objection to proceeding, as the constitution intends.
So, it turns out the problem is not the senate filibuster after all.
It is Rule #8.1 that needs to be revised to make the senate procedure constitutionally compliant. Then, maybe it would be more difficult for the senate to obstruct policy that benefits the public.