Democrats launch filibuster reform by forcing immigration and voting rights issue: Reporter’s Notebook

Let’s describe this process as the “ripening” of a problem.

Expect Senate Democrats to use a potential deadlock over the debt ceiling, voting rights, and even the parliamentarian’s decision that immigration reform does not qualify for a budget bill like means of justifying the modification of the filibuster.

It’s a bet for mature the democratic filibuster reform issue. But also with regard to immigration. The Liberals want to test the limits of introducing immigration provisions into a budget bill. The fight against immigration is not yet completely over. Senatorial MP Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled that immigration is not part of a tax bill. Democrats will petition MacDonough again with another proposal – and simultaneously try to blame her for all their wrongs if she comes out against them. Again.

But this whole enterprise is really meant to embolden Democrats to eventually change the filibuster.
To witness it:

Republicans could very well obstruct a bill designed to avoid a government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling. House Democrats approved the plan on Tuesday night in a party line vote. However, Senate Democrats could likely pass this bill on their own – perhaps with a decisive vote from Vice President Harris – if there was no filibuster in the Senate.

BORDER PATROL OFFICERS FACING DEMORATIC ATTACKS TRANSFORMED TO OFFICE DUTIES DURING AN INVESTIGATION

Democrats had to try to fit immigration policy into the $ 3.5 trillion social spending plan because any further immigration legislation would face obstruction. A reminder that overcoming a filibuster requires 60 yeses.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., hopes to introduce a Senate voting rights bill soon. But it might face obstruction. You need 60 votes to end an obstruction to start debate on a bill and 60 votes in the back to extinguish an obstruction.

The same can happen in the Senate if the House approves a bill codifying Roe vs. Wade. Certainly, there are pro-choice Democrats who will reject this in the Senate. But Democrats will attempt to present this bill as facing a legislative deadlock because of the filibuster.

Democrats could ultimately fail in their efforts to insert immigration policy into the social spending plan.

But they have a chance to implement a special exemption for the systematic obstruction of voting rights.

Let’s dive into the rabbit hole:

Let’s say Schumer is trying to bring in a franchise bill. Senator Joe Manchin, DW.V., says he’s on board. But you need 60 to get over a filibuster just to call the bill up for debate. Then you need 60 downstream votes to end debate on the whole bill and move on to the final vote. So it’s two obstructions.

Who these 10 Republicans would support the franchise bill are far from clear. It is more than likely that 10 GOP votes do not exist.

So what does this bring to Senate Democrats?

TRACKING THE TRAVEL OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM THE BORDER WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

A failed procedural vote in an attempt to overcome an obstruction.

And, parliamentarily, it is exactly what Senate Democrats need procedurally to transform obstruction.

There has been a lot of machinations in recent days about Senate Democrats crafting a special filibuster exception on an issue such as voting rights. In other words, all bills would need 60 votes to overcome one obstruction – except those dealing with voting.

It is a monster to change the Senate rules – let alone change the Senate filibuster rule. But it is much easier to establish a new Senate previous. In fact, the Senate does much of its work through precedents.

A failed vote to break an obstruction is essential because, parliamentarily, the Senate is prohibited from continuing the debate on this issue. The Senate has unlimited debate. But not after a failed vote to break an obstruction.

However, what is in order at this point is a roll-call vote, subject to a simple majority, to set a new precedent, that it only takes 51 years to overcome an obstruction, on the laws on the right. to vote.

This, in Senate parlance, would be “nuclear option III”. Democrats would follow the model of the Senate executing Nuclear Options I and II in 2013 and 2017 respectively. All the Senate does is vote to override Senatorial MP Elizabeth MacDonough’s opinion that it does not take 60 votes to turn off the filibuster on a voting rights bill. A simple majority, with Vice President Harris playing the tiebreaker role, is all they need. The Senate does not change the rules. It just establishes a new previous, with the vote of the Senate, with 51 yes, to overcome the decision of the parliamentarian.

GUTFELD BLASTS “TASTING MEDIA HACKS” BECOMING “FULL COVINGTON” IN BORDER PATROL HORSE PHOTO

There seems to be more energy among Senate Democrats to perhaps “change” the obstruction of voting rights than on other issues. You may wonder why Senate Democrats don’t just bypass MacDonough on immigration or statehood in Washington, via an imaginable “Nuclear Options IV” or “Nuclear Options V?” The first problem is that on a regular bill, Democrats don’t get 50 votes for immigration reform. And, if they were to bypass MacDonough and cram immigration into the $ 3.5 trillion bill, they need 60 votes (!). This is because budget reconciliation is controlled by the special budget process. Therefore, 60 votes are needed to “waive the finance law” and include something in a reconciliation bill that otherwise is not admissible.

Much of it concerns incrementalism. Democrats are trying to “mature” some degree of filibuster reform – by forcing the issue of immigration and voting rights into the coming days.

This could create a “nuclear option” where the filibuster is altered or reshaped.

But, it is not known if the votes are there to support a nuclear option. If the Senate had the votes for any of these schemes, we would know. The Senate would have already voted to change things.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The left has a growing horror of obstruction of the Senate. Liberals complain that the filibuster is blocking the advancement of key elements of the Democratic agenda: voting rights, statehood for Washington, DC and Puerto Rico, potentially the $ 3.5 trillion social spending plan. Democratic dollars, gun control legislation and codification by Roe v. Wade place.

This is true on some issues. False on the others.

Democrats pushing potential filibuster reform have two audiences: it’s an effort to show the Liberals they don’t have the votes to reverse filibuster. But it is also a point of pressure on the moderates. Democratic leaders hope those who are so opposed to the filibuster amendment become so frustrated that they are willing to forgo caution and change things to get their bills through.

We will soon know if this is the season for filibuster changes to mature.