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
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.