Zitat:Basheute um 22:51 Uhr
I am foncused
how did Benett get confirmed?
doesnt it require two thirds?
darkqiviutheute um 22:58 Uhr
@Bas Do you mean Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court?
Basheute um 23:18 Uhr
aye
darkqiviutheute um 23:19 Uhr
Barrett was confirmed through only a simple majority, 51-48. Every Republican minus Murkowski (voted no) voted to confirm, every Dem/Indy voted no.
Because Senate Dems blocked the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, the Republicans voted to remove the 60-vote requirement for SCOTUS judges.
Basheute um 23:21 Uhr
Nuclear option?
that's what I dont get
when can the nuclear option be applies?
*d
darkqiviutheute um 23:22 Uhr
You got it.
Basheute um 23:22 Uhr
are there even formal requirements?
Or can they just be "60 didnt work so we are butthurt and use the NO"?
darkqiviutheute um 23:23 Uhr
That's exactly the reason.
Republicans wanted to fill the seat after blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland the year before.
Basheute um 23:23 Uhr
no i was jzust foncused
there is no requirement for the NO?
Aka reads to me: There are 60s requirements but in reality they dont if majority leader isnt being nice?
I mean, is there ANY requirement to invoke the NO?
[i]darkqiviutheute um 23:24 Uhr[/i]
Nope.
Basheute um 23:25 Uhr
makes the FB even more weird
darkqiviutheute um 23:25 Uhr
In fact, there's no requirement for the 60-vote/percent majority needed to pass any form of legislation.
It used to not be this way.
Basheute um 23:32 Uhr
The 60v is for ending the filibuster, right?
Reads: The filibuster only exists if the majority senate party is playing nice.
is that correct?
darkqiviutheute um 23:35 Uhr
The majority party can implement or remove the filibuster. In fact, because of how myper-partisan the Senate was, each presidential candidate was asked whether they would eliminate it and make the passage of bills a 51-vote majority. Warren & Harris led the campaign to eliminate. Most were open, including Harris and Sanders.
Biden was actually against eliminating it, but then signaled support this past July
A few weeks later, Obama called to eliminate the filibuster at John Lewis's eulogy, swaying Democratic opinion considerably.
Basheute um 23:38 Uhr
I thought when they were saying eliminaiting the FB would mean to remove it completely
so it cant be used even after their presidency etc
So...that's how that SCOTUS Banett got confirmed?
darkqiviutheute um 23:40 Uhr
Should they use the nuclear option to pass bills altogether and eliminate the filibuster, I don't see the Senate ever coming back to it.
Basheute um 23:41 Uhr
So yeah, just a "play nice" thing?
darkqiviutheute um 23:41 Uhr
Probably.
Basheute um 23:42 Uhr
OK, now enlighten me further:
Last year jan, the impeachment afaik required a simple majority in the houes as well as senate?
i mean impeach plus trial
darkqiviutheute um 23:43 Uhr
Simple majority for impeachment's only in the House. In the Senate, the Constitution requires two-thirds of the chamber to convict to remove the president.
Basheute um 23:44 Uhr
Ah ok, i thought that was different last time
darkqiviutheute um 23:44 Uhr
The only way the Senate is able to change the percentage needed to convict and remove is through a constitutional amendment.
Basheute um 23:44 Uhr
ESP because i thought they were very happy about having almost 50%
I mean, the impeachment back then never had any chances?
darkqiviutheute um 23:46 Uhr
Conviction was never going to happen then.
Basheute um 23:47 Uhr
ah ok, not that the chances are TOO high this time either
darkqiviutheute um 23:47 Uhr
Unlike last year, I expect some Republicans in the House to vote for impeachment this time. Senate Republicans voting to convict, however? I can see one or two, but no more.
Basheute um 23:48 Uhr
I think there are some few more, but prob far from enough
romney
uhm what where the other few decent beings?
darkqiviutheute um 23:50 Uhr
But here's another caveat: If many Senate Republicans vote "present" instead of "no," the threshold for conviction drops.
Basheute um 23:50 Uhr
"present" in which sense?
darkqiviutheute um 23:51 Uhr
"Present" means they're not voting yes or no. It's as if their vote doesn't exist.
So if a large chunk of GOP Sens vote "present" rather than to convict or acquit, the threshold to convict might drop.
Basheute um 23:53 Uhr
to?
darkqiviutheute um 23:53 Uhr
Whoops. Misunderstood.
I don't know if I'm correct, but if, say, ten Republicans Senators vote "present" instead of "no," that means it's like there are 90 senators instead of 100 voting; meaning 60 votes instead of 67 would be required to convict.

Again, I don't know if I'm correct, so take this w/ a grain of salt.
Basheute um 23:57 Uhr
Lisa Murkowski  Susan Collins Ben Sasse Pat Toomey
i think these could IMAGINE at least to impeach him or hinted at it
+romney above
darkqiviutheute um 23:58 Uhr
Murkowski hinted she might leave the Republican Party.
Basheute um 23:58 Uhr
it was more to have a rough overview who could impeach him of the GOP
darkqiviutheute um 23:59 Uhr
I know. :wink:
Basheute um 23:59 Uhr
if you dont have anything to add, may I screenshot andor share the convo?
darkqiviutheute um 23:59 Uhr
Course.
---
The fact that Sasse, a hardcore Trump supporter, may back impeachment and conviction is damning.
darkqiviutheute um 00:00 Uhr
But like I said, I'm no expert on Constituional law. So I'm likely wrong on some details.
@Bas About the filibuster, one writer for The Atlantic called it a monument to white supremacy, as it was used to buffer civil rights legislation by Dixiecrats back in the day and Republican Rand Paul last month.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/senate-filibuster-monument-white-supremacy/613579/
The Atlantic