Should Kamala Depose Mitch?

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

There is no law or Senate Rule that gives authority to any member over any other. The status of Senate Majority Leader deciding which bills see action is strictly by informal precedent:

"The majority leader has the right of first recognition pursuant to precedent. The leader was first granted priority of recognition in 1937 because of a ruling made by Vice President John (“Cactus Jack”) Nance Garner while presiding over the Senate. On his own initiative, the Vice President decided that “in the event that several senators seek recognition simultaneously, priority of recognition shall be accorded to the majority leader and minority leader, the majority [bill] manager and the minority [bill] manager, in that order.”

By creating the right of preferential recognition, the Garner precedent serves as the foundation on which leader power is based in the Senate today. Since any member can technically make a motion to proceed to legislation or a nomination under the Senate’s rules, being the first to do so enables the majority leader to set the schedule and control the agenda to a limited degree. Note that the minority leader is the next most powerful senator under this formulation. This is because he has preferential recognition after the majority leader. That technically makes him more powerful than the other 98 members of the Senate, including those in the majority party."

What makes Senate leaders so powerful? - LegBranch

By James Wallner The floor leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties dominate today’s Senate. They play a central role both in crafting major bills and in shepherding them through the legislative process from beginning to end. And they cultivate carefully the expectation that they are...

www.legbranch.org

As President of the Senate, Harris could change that order with the stroke of a pen. The question for this thread is, should she?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Why not? It will be legislative deadlock otherwise, as I doubt Mitch will change his M.O.

 

[fskimospy]

The rules of the senate are decided upon by majority vote. If Republicans maintain a majority and Harris did this they would just change it back.

 

[Commodus]

What fskimospy said. Basically, the best hope for ousting Mitch and restoring functional democracy is winning those Georgia runoffs.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

The rules of the senate are decided upon by majority vote. If Republicans maintain a majority and Harris did this they would just change it back.

Read the quoted passage again. This is not a Senate Rule. It's precedent written on sort of a whim of the then VP. The current VP can (theoretically) change it without a whisper from anyone else.

 

[fskimospy]

Read the quoted passage again. This is not a Senate Rule. It's precedent written on sort of a whim of the then VP. The current VP can (theoretically) change it without a whisper from anyone else.

Right, and then the senate majority would change it back.

 

[Jaskalas]

As President of the Senate, Harris could change that order with the stroke of a pen. The question for this thread is, should she?

Yes, the minority should at least be able to call votes on legislation. Perhaps not as often as the majority, but definitely with some regularity. Democracy needs Senators on the record, not hiding behind a leader who refuses to call votes.

 

[cytg111]

Right, and then the senate majority would change it back.

Would they? I mean... Power is a powerful thing...

 

[fskimospy]

Would they? I mean... Power is a powerful thing...

I mean if the senate majority wanted to change it today they could.

 

[shortylickens]

Guys, I think we need to understand something here.
Right now D.C. is filled with slimy clever motherfuckers who have absolutely no intention of being held accountable for their previous activity. On top of which approximately half the country is blindly devoted to them and supports their nonsense.
You aren't going to "get" anyone right now. Its not like the 70's when even staunch republicans turned against Nixon because he was caught doing all kinds of crap. Back then the majority of the public wanted accountability regardless of party affiliation. That's not the case today.
We're going to have to let a whole lot of bullshit simply pass because the people aren't going to put up with or ask for years of senate hearings and probes just to nail a politician. Americans have remarkably short attention spans these days thanks to a constant barrage of information. They won't support anything for too long.

 

[sandorski]

"Nance" is a name? Grody.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Right, and then the senate majority would change it back.

nope!

 

[JEDIYoda]

I mean if the senate majority wanted to change it today they could.

nope!

 

[fskimospy]

nope!

Can I ask why? The rules of the senate are whatever 51 senators say they are. If they wanted to take away the leader’s power they could.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^^ Theoretically, if Kam anointed someone else, say the Minority leader, that person would then be in position to block a vote on a rules change.

 

[fskimospy]

^^^ Theoretically, if Kam anointed someone else, say the Minority leader, that person would then be in position to block a vote on a rules change.

Can’t block a vote on a rules change. The tactic used for the nuclear option can be used for any rule.

1) create question of order by doing something that contravenes current senate rules.

2) your motion is denied because it’s against the rules.

3) you appeal the denial to the full senate and 51 votes means you win.