U.S. top court mulls whether to take up 'Dreamers' dispute
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-weighs-intervening-dreamers-problem-154648952.html

For now....

DACA is dead.. It just doesn't know it yet...

"DACA is dead..."

A legislative fix for DACA is dead. At least until possibly after the mid term elections in November.

"That's what happens when a POTUS ignores the law and just does whatever the hell he wants...."

DACA itself still CONTINUES without change due to lower court rulings. Whether what Obama did or not is constitutional or not is STILL to be determined, despite all the right wing bluster, as it has never reached the Supreme Court YET for review.

That's what happens when a POTUS ignores the law and just does whatever the hell he wants....

I know THAT one is gonna come back and bite me on the ass.. :D

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/02/14/what-about-all-the-others-in-the-white-house-without-permanent-security-clearances/#comment-115850

-CW

You're right, it's not in the Constitution at all. It's all part of the bastard children of what used to be the filibuster rule, which was also never part of the original Constitution.

These days, it takes two votes with a 60-vote threshhold for any big legislation. The first is to open debate, and the second is to end the debate (I think, doing this from memory). Any big bill needs 60 solid votes behind it to get to the final vote (the one that counts) which is actually a majority vote (again, doing this from memory, really should look it up on Wikipedia or something).

This didn't used to be mandatory for all bills, but the rules changed a while back (1970s) so that actual talking filibusters didn't have to actually happen any more. This was the same time filibuster threshhold was lowered (used to be 2/3rds, or 67 votes).

This worked OK for a while, but in the last 20 years, both parties have abused the heck out of it so that now any bill at all (it seems) has to pass the 60-vote threshhold.

The Senate could get rid of this rule at any time, though, since as you state it is not part of the Constution. They already have "dropped this nuke" twice -- the first (Harry Reid) to end 60-vote filibusters on judicial nominees below SCOTUS, and then the second (Mitch McConnell) to do the same for SCOTUS.

The "third nuke" would be to do away with the last vestiges of the filibuster altogether and just go to majority rules (as the House does). McConnell occasionally gets pressure to do just this (from Trump, even), but has so far expressed no interest in doing so.

That's because he remembers what it's like to be in the minority in the Senate.

My guess is that before either party drops this third nuke, they'll probably water it down before they do. Perhaps make the threshhold 55 votes? That might change things enough, who knows?

This would be a much more monumental step than doing so for judicial nominees, but I do kind of think that we're getting a lot closer to taking this step. At this point, I don't know which party would do it first, but I can certainly see it as a possibility.

-CW

Before I begin, one BIG apology, to "jay," who wrote in before anyone else last Friday to let me know I had blown a title in spectacular fashion:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/02/09/ftp471/#comment-115535

I stand corrected, I thank you for the correction (good eye!), and I welcome you to the site. My sincere apologies for how long it took to post your comment, too. I've fixed the Hitchhiker's Guide title in the article, while blushing shamefully for my error...

OK, with that out of the way, let's get to some other comments over the past week...

-CW

I am prepared to admit that the Republicans currently control Congress. I am prepared for the idea that they will pass laws, signed by a Republican president, that I don't like. But that should be normal. They won the elections, they get to pass laws.

But the 60% thing. Is that in the Constitution? Is that some rule about not ruffling feathers, or encouraging bipartisanship? As far as I can see with your post here, a bipartisan majority in the mid-50s failed to pass a Senate bill, because ... 60%. Like the Constitution says, oh no it doesn't.

I'm ready for it to go. Yes, the progressive agenda will suffer, until the progressives actually win some majority-rules elections that say, with more than 50% in the legislatures, you get to pass laws. Even in the Senate.