By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senate Republicans, by overriding the Senate parliamentarian to revoke a California vehicle emissions waiver, inadvertently created a procedural vulnerability. This action, using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), allows Democrats to potentially stall or even block the Senate’s agenda through numerous disapproval resolutions targeting executive branch actions. Democrats could utilize this to disrupt Senate proceedings significantly, potentially delaying or preventing key legislation like the Republican tax bill. While Democrats are aware of this tactic, it remains uncertain whether they will fully exploit this newly created opening.
Read the original article here
Senate GOP Gives Dems a Chance to Tank Trump’s Budget Bill—Will They Take It?
The Republican-controlled Senate has seemingly handed Democrats a golden opportunity: a chance to derail the Trump administration’s budget bill. This presents a significant strategic dilemma for Democrats, weighing the potential benefits of obstruction against the considerable risks and the likelihood of Republican countermeasures.
The prevailing sentiment amongst many is deep skepticism that Democrats will effectively utilize this opportunity. A common thread running through various perspectives is a belief that the Republican Party, especially under this particular administration, will not let procedural hurdles impede their legislative goals. They’re seen as possessing the political will and the ability to circumvent any obstacle, even if it means bending or outright breaking established Senate rules.
One proposed strategy for Democratic obstruction involves leveraging precedents, such as the override of the Senate parliamentarian on the Congressional Review Act, to force numerous procedural votes, potentially slowing the Senate to a near standstill. However, serious questions arise about the practicality of this plan. The potential need to individually override the parliamentarian’s rulings on each rule brought to the floor renders this approach questionable, potentially making it far too cumbersome to be effective. Moreover, this tactic would require Democrats to effectively maintain a united front, which historical patterns and internal political dynamics render less than certain.
The notion that Democrats hold the power to decisively block the budget bill is viewed by many as a fantasy. The underlying assumption of this strategy hinges on the Senate adhering to established norms and procedures, a reliance considered naive given the Republicans’ demonstrated willingness to disregard precedent whenever it suits their agenda. The most likely response to significant Democratic obstruction would be for Republicans to simply change the rules, effectively negating any procedural roadblocks put in place.
The timing of articles highlighting this supposed Democratic leverage is also questioned. The information needed to anticipate the current situation was available well before the election. Critics argue that focusing on a Democratic ability to obstruct, rather than the GOP’s actions, misplaces the blame and unfairly burdens Democrats with the responsibility for preventing the bill’s passage. The suggestion that any Republican Senator voting for the bill bears no complicity in its passage is equally disputed, given that their votes directly enable the bill’s passage.
Furthermore, the belief that a simple delaying tactic, possibly stretching over years, could effectively prevent the bill’s passage is deemed highly improbable. Many believe the situation ultimately boils down to a straightforward vote, with Democrats’ ability to influence the outcome limited to public arguments and their votes against the bill. This would ignore the fact that Republicans hold the majority and can pass legislation without Democratic support.
The argument that the inherent flaws in the bill, along with the ethical obligations of Republican Senators, would be enough to prevent its passage is also challenged. The lack of past resistance to similar measures creates considerable doubt about this possibility. The Republicans’ past actions and the current political climate significantly weaken this expectation.
Some suggest that letting the bill pass, allowing the public to fully experience the consequences, would serve as a powerful demonstration of the consequences of Republican policies. This approach is based on the belief that such an outcome would politically backfire on Republicans and shift public sentiment against the party. However, the success of such a strategy depends on several factors that are uncertain. The public’s ability to assess consequences rationally is not assured, and the political landscape can also be unpredictable.
Another opinion floats the possibility that Republicans might not truly desire the bill’s passage, creating a “win-win” scenario for them. This scenario implies that the Republicans might prefer for the Democrats to halt the bill, providing them with the excuse of the Democrats’ opposition as a way to deflect responsibility for the subsequent issues. Alternatively, if the bill does pass, the Republicans could claim that the Democrats were obstructing progress.
Ultimately, there is a deep-seated pessimism about the Democrats’ ability or willingness to effectively obstruct the Republican agenda. There’s a palpable frustration with the perceived lack of strong opposition to the Republican party’s actions. Many believe the Democrats have repeatedly missed opportunities to prevent harmful legislation and will likely do so again. While some urge bold action from the Democrats, many believe such efforts are futile, leading to a sense of hopelessness and questioning the value of continued political engagement.