If you’re sitting around wondering what is happening in the Senate, (a) you need to get a life, and (b) here’s a handy-dandy overview.
We begin with the rule that spending measures have to originate in the House, so to start a bill like our Ukraine funding measure in the Senate you need to bring a House-passed measure to the Senate Floor. The first step is to proceed to that House-passed measure.
A group of Republicans objects to all this, so the Majority Leader had to file cloture on that motion to proceed to the House-passed measure, requiring 60 votes. Getting cloture on that motion was our first vote, 67-32.
Cloture rules require thirty hours of post-cloture debate, so that debate took place, and then after that came the actual vote to proceed, which only required a simple majority, cloture having been invoked. That passed on Friday 64-19.
But the bill we moved to is not the one we want to pass, so we had to substitute in the text that we wanted.
That too required cloture (filed Friday), which requires an “intervening day” (yesterday) before the vote, as well as the thirty hours after. That second cloture is what we voted on today, 67-27.
In the meantime, one Senator today tried to send the bill to committee, taking it off the Floor and everybody back to square one, but that measure was tabled by simple majority vote.
That was the first vote today; then immediately came the 67-27 cloture vote regarding the substitute language.
Now we have thirty more hours to burn, setting up a vote Monday evening, by a simple majority, to actually effect the substitution of the text of our Ukraine measure for the original text of the House-passed bill.
Monday’s vote will be the actual vote substituting in our Senate language. Then we have to pass the bill with the new language.
So a third cloture may be required, with another intervening day, and another vote over 60, and another thirty hours of debate. So this could take a while.
Much of this procedure is swept aside by agreement, but a group of Senators is so opposed to the bill that they won’t allow unanimous consent to any departure from these procedures. That agreement is often achieved by agreeing to a schedule of amendment votes.
Feelings are running so high within the Republican conference, that Republicans have so far been unable to agree on any amendment, let alone a schedule of amendments that can accelerate the schedule. So here we are. Now go get a life.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In Loper arguments, Kavanaugh suggested the danger of the Chevron precedent is “aggressive assertions of unilateral executive power.” Excuse me? Congressional Review Act? Appropriations process? Legislative committee oversight? Even impeachment? Oh, and judicial review under APA.
It’s just bonkers to assert that administrative agencies exercise “unilateral executive power.” But it is the talking point of fossil fuel polluters and big corporate interests; it’s telling that Kavanaugh parrots them after they put him on the Court.
Florida insurance prices sky-high and climbing; insurers leaving and going bust; state-backed insurer may not have enough reserves for major storm. Ingredients are in place for an insurance meltdown.
Here’s the cascade: No insurance, no mortgages; no mortgages, brutal property market. Watch this space, and remember Freddie Mac’s warnings of an impending coastal property values crash.
Let’s take a look at some of the tweaks the Supreme Court made to the lower courts’ code of conduct. Swapping out “judge” for “justice” makes perfect sense, but a few of these edits ought to raise eyebrows.
Here’s the “no ratting out your colleagues” switch:
Note here the addition of “knowingly.”
Deleted: “that a judge’s conduct contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s conduct contravened this Code, that a judicial employee’s conduct contravened the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, or that a lawyer violated applicable rules of professional conduct.”
The question is enforcement: where do you file a complaint; who reviews it; how does fact finding occur; who compares what happened to what’s allowed?
That’s where the rubber hits the road. 🧵
For instance, justices are supposed to recuse from cases where they have a personal interest, but Thomas has never been asked about his wife’s 1/6 role or what he knew.
For instance, justices are supposed to report gifts and income, but Thomas has never been asked about the RV loan on which he reportedly paid only interest not principal.
“As Mr. Trump criticized the court, Mr. Leo with the Federalist Society is said to have told associates he was disappointed that the former president’s rhetoric made his judicial appointment record look ‘transactional,’ aimed at advancing Mr. Trump’s personal interests….”
Let’s consider “transactional”: Kochs hated Trump, Trump hated Kochs; then came Trump’s public “Federalist Society list” for the Supreme Court; then came peace between House of Koch and House of Trump. Is that a transaction? nytimes.com/2023/11/01/us/…
As to the first: the Kochs pledged to spend millions against Trump; Trump mocked them and called out Republican primary opponents who traveled to fancy Koch political event to kiss their ring.
The number one goal of the right-wing fossil-fuel billionaires who captured the Court is to break the public’s power to regulate things like pollution.