President Donald Trump threatened to veto every piece of legislation put forward during the second half of his administration if Democrats flip control of the House or Senate during next month’s midterm elections.
“Well, I think the Republicans are going to win. But if there was, you call it gridlock, what happens is I veto everything,” Trump told reporters Friday morning while speaking on the South Lawn. “And then the Democrats come and they want to make a deal. So we’ll work it out.”
Historical precedent and polling data suggest Democrats are on the cusp of flipping at least the House next month and possibly the Senate, due to public frustration over the Iran war and high costs of living.
So, they will override his veto
Can you expand on this more, or provide a source? I tried to look it up but I still don’t quite understand what role this plays.
In the Senate there are a bunch of rules around what can be passed without being subject to a filibuster (effectively what can be passed with >50 votes rather than >60). The parliamentarian is basically a referee who decides which bills (and parts of bills) these rules apply to, and is appointed (not a senator).
A common case is that the budget cannot be filibustered, so senators try to put stuff into the budget bill to get it through, and then the parliamentarian says “no, that’s not a budget item”.
None of these rules are legally binding, so some get upset when Democrats abide by them.
For additional context the current parliamentarian is Elizabeth MacDonough , appointed by Harry Reid (D) in 2012.
But that’s specifically referencing the Byrd rule right? Does it ever apply to more than the budget?
The parliamentarian does handle a lot more than just budget reconciliation (e.g. who gets to speak when), but I’m not aware of any recent controversy besides that.
I think “the parliamentarian” is sometimes used as a synecdoche (or in ignorance) for Democrats’ unwillingness to break senate procedure – or the law – in general.
Got it, it’s the surrogate for Corpo Dem inaction. Thanks for all the information, genuinely appreciate it.
Not just Democrat.
Congress is broken in its current state, so nothing gets passed anymore except budget and appropriations. So what a Party will do is include things that they want in the budget bill that has to be passed every year or the government shuts down. They’ll hem and haw and fight anything they don’t like being added to the budget but that’s just the only way to do anything without either having a 2/3 majority or going with the “Nuclear option” of eliminating the filibuster.
So budgets are kind of like the loophole that both parties use to get anything they want passed. What the Parliamentarian can do (and has in the past but just the Dems really, because the Republican parliamentarian will rubber stamp anything the party wants) is decide that something is out of scope of the budget and therefore cannot be included. The only things they are supposed to include are things relating to the budget itself. If the party does not like the parliamentarians decision they can just replace them and get someone who does, but the Dems don’t really play hardball like that.
Susie Wiles has pushed back, occasionally, but IIRC, was mostly ignored?
They’re talking about Chuck Schumer. You can read plenty of articles about his anti-American politics. There’s literally a quote from him saying “My job is to make the American public love Israel” or something similar. He is constantly putting down Democrats that are winning elections with popular policies because he hates progress. He’s also the one that caved on the government shutdown and forced through funding for ICE thugs to indescriminately murder people.
Is Chuck Schumer the parliamentarian?
Edit: Just to be clear. I know Chuck Schumer is a ghoul and is very close to the same as a GOP member, but I’m not sure what relationship you’re drawing between the parliamentarian and him?
He’s the minority leader currently because the Dems don’t control the senate. After the election if the Dems take control, he would be.
He “might” be the Majority leader. Are you saying he’ll prevent any real progress by being the Majority leader?
Yes. He has explicitly stated that in interviews.
This has brought me no closer to understanding the parliamentarian, but I appreciate your replies.
Not everyone listens to the parliamentarian all the time. It’s basically just a person who says, “this is/not allowed.”
They are not. The majority leader is not the parliamentarian.