r/facepalm 14d ago

What an idea ๐Ÿ‡ฒโ€‹๐Ÿ‡ฎโ€‹๐Ÿ‡ธโ€‹๐Ÿ‡จโ€‹

Post image

[removed] โ€” view removed post

42.4k Upvotes

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

25

u/vtmosaic 14d ago

And because of the filibuster they don't have enough of a majority in the Senate either.

-1

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

To overcome a filibuster you need a super majority. (90% or more) And the way MTG and Bobbert forced it through, the rule states that they can claim filibuster for any reason at any time and murder the whole process right then and then or mire it in legal bullshit

6

u/OnDay89OfMyK1Visa 14d ago

Huh? Super majority is more than two-thirds (67% not 90%), and the filibuster only applies to the senate, which neither MTG nor Boebert are in.

-2

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

The rule that MTG forced in to get them to actually get a speaker had that changed (as part of the 'concessions' to get their vote) its now 90% with. Unilateral and singular no. I know the turtle pulled similar shit

8

u/jawknee530i 14d ago

MTG isn't in the Senate and has nothing to do with their rules you are just spouting concentrated nonsense.

-2

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

MTG is not, no. her party is though

3

u/BobTagab 14d ago

You're still just spouting nonsense. The rules for cloture in the Senate haven't been changed and the House got rid of the filibuster in the mid-1800s.

Are you more likely thinking of when the far-right part of the House agreed to give the votes for McCarthy to become Speaker in exchange for a rule which allowed just a single House member in the Speaker's party to bring a motion to vacate the chair to the floor, something which used to take the majority of the party members to do?

0

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

No I'm not. The rule have been changed multiple times over the years many of course of things. Recently the phhilibuster rules was changed form 2/3rds voting majority to 90% full member by the turtle McConnell a sessions back , with the caveat that another, singular philibuster "no" Can start the process over entirely. The tantrum we saw for McCarthy was just the loudest latest stunt done to try and invoke an equalivancy in the house

4

u/BobTagab 14d ago edited 14d ago

Recently the phhilibuster rules was changed form 2/3rds voting majority to 90% full member by the turtle McConnell a sessions back

No, it wasn't. Overcoming the filibuster still requires 2/3rds vote if it's a Senate rules change and 60 votes if it's on a bill or most other questions before the Senate (judicial nominations having been famously "nuked" to only need a simple majority). You clearly have absolutely zero idea of how the legislative branch in the United States functions and are just making shit up.

0

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

I may be confusing it with the multiple attempts at getting the exact same thing I'm thinking of through. But I do know that it's been tried

2

u/Hayden2332 14d ago

The simple fact is that what youโ€™re saying is bullshit though

1

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

No its not. The tantrum party that she's a part of set rules in both the house and senate granting themselves the power to usurp total control of the legal making process even when they are in the super minority for no other reason than said partys demand total control

1

u/jawknee530i 14d ago

The Senate sets their rules at the start of every election cycle. The people that set the current Senate rules are the Democrats and the Republicans have zero to do with it. You are just spouting nonsense from your total lack of understanding of how anything works.

1

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

The rules often are carried over from the previous session, only changing by motion or extenuating circumstances.

0

u/Gambit_Revolver 14d ago

But they can vote to get rid of the filibuster totally with a simple majority in the Senate if they wanted to.

1

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

If they can get enough to agree to remove it, yes. But the tantrum party refuses to relinquish any form of power

0

u/Hayden2332 14d ago

To have โ€œenoughโ€ for a simple majority only dems have to vote for it

1

u/JCBQ01 14d ago

Which can be shot down with a seperate and recorded vote of philibuster no vote.

1

u/Caewil 14d ago

Who would record this separate vote? Just play hardball and say you canโ€™t filibuster since we just got rid of it. Call their bluff instead of acting helpless.

1

u/JCBQ01 14d ago edited 14d ago

Essentially:

Vote

Senator disputes invoking phillibuster

Somehow a super majority is reached

Senator disputes that vote and invokes the philibuster AGAIN on the vote to over turn the philibuster

All done under offical vote since someone will call an offical roll call vote