I remain mystified as to why they didn't already do this when they had the chance. Not to mention why they even had the small surge in legislation they did have prior to the newly elected officials taking their seats. Why all the waiting in the first place? Ever greedy I suppose, but despite my approval of what the prior Congress and Senate accomplished, my real question has been "why not more"?
I remain mystified as to why they didn't already do this when they had the chance. Not to mention why they even had the small surge in legislation they did have prior to the newly elected officials taking their seats. Why all the waiting in the first place? Ever greedy I suppose, but despite my approval of what the prior Congress and Senate accomplished, my real question has been "why not more"?
Yehawes, As for the 2 questions you raise, while the reply to the first is the more complex, said complications never were seriously contemplated because the Senate would have blocked any initiative to expand the Court.
As for why more was not accomplished while the Dems controlled both the House and Senate, the answer is quite straightforward—the filibuster. You might recall, that while Biden’s entire legislative agenda passed in the House, it was stalled in the Senate. You also might recall that Senate Democrats had to cram Biden’s entire agenda into one bill that only could be passed through the procedural maneuver known as reconciliation. The reason Dems had to legislate in this ridiculous way was because Senate Republicans (plus Manchin and Sinema) refused to allow regular order—moving bills to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote.
Next, you might recall that the physical and human infrastructure pieces were separated and that, while the physical piece enjoyed bipartisan support, the human piece requiring only 50 Senate votes under reconciliation was voted down by Manchin and Sinema. Eventually, Senate Democrats got the two to agree to the vastly edited-down Inflation Reduction Act, with the VP casting the tie-breaking vote.
As for legislation that had passed in the House, but didn’t qualify under reconciliation, had Manchin and Sinema agreed to set aside the filibuster for passage of even some of those bills, the legislation could have advanced with 50 Senate votes with the VP, again, casting the tie breaking vote. Regrettably, Manchin and Sinema refused to consider any filibuster rule change.
I hope I have been helpful, particularly with your second question.
I remain mystified as to why they didn't already do this when they had the chance. Not to mention why they even had the small surge in legislation they did have prior to the newly elected officials taking their seats. Why all the waiting in the first place? Ever greedy I suppose, but despite my approval of what the prior Congress and Senate accomplished, my real question has been "why not more"?
Yehawes, As for the 2 questions you raise, while the reply to the first is the more complex, said complications never were seriously contemplated because the Senate would have blocked any initiative to expand the Court.
As for why more was not accomplished while the Dems controlled both the House and Senate, the answer is quite straightforward—the filibuster. You might recall, that while Biden’s entire legislative agenda passed in the House, it was stalled in the Senate. You also might recall that Senate Democrats had to cram Biden’s entire agenda into one bill that only could be passed through the procedural maneuver known as reconciliation. The reason Dems had to legislate in this ridiculous way was because Senate Republicans (plus Manchin and Sinema) refused to allow regular order—moving bills to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote.
Next, you might recall that the physical and human infrastructure pieces were separated and that, while the physical piece enjoyed bipartisan support, the human piece requiring only 50 Senate votes under reconciliation was voted down by Manchin and Sinema. Eventually, Senate Democrats got the two to agree to the vastly edited-down Inflation Reduction Act, with the VP casting the tie-breaking vote.
As for legislation that had passed in the House, but didn’t qualify under reconciliation, had Manchin and Sinema agreed to set aside the filibuster for passage of even some of those bills, the legislation could have advanced with 50 Senate votes with the VP, again, casting the tie breaking vote. Regrettably, Manchin and Sinema refused to consider any filibuster rule change.
I hope I have been helpful, particularly with your second question.