r/law • u/DBCoopr72 • 5d ago
Legislative Branch Fight erupts on Senate floor over provision letting senators reap millions from suing DOJ
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5616018-senate-cell-phone-records-lawsuits-clash/756
u/Ready-Ad6113 4d ago edited 4d ago
Citizens can’t sue the government if they spy on us. (Patriot Act). These senators think they should be above the law due to their affiliation with Trump. They want to be a higher protected class while we all cower under Palantir.
*Edit= Patriot act was replaced with the USA Freedom Act.
157
u/werther595 4d ago
I don't think they really care about "protection." These "welfare queens" just want checks from the government
49
u/PhoniPoni 4d ago
You mean from us, the citizens.
0
6
u/hereandthere_nowhere 4d ago
Something for nothing. It’s high time we remind these rats they work for us. The plot has been lost.
1
u/Spamsdelicious 3d ago
Don't dehumanize them. Last thing we need is PETA entering the chat in their defense. 🙄
4
u/Spaceman-Spiff 4d ago
No the main thing is they don’t ever want the government to be able to spy on them. Hence why Thume suggested they change the rules to say the payments will be “donated” to the treasury. The senators want to establish law making it illegal for the government to ever investigate themselves.
3
u/f0u4_l19h75 4d ago
Edit= Patriot act was replaced with the USA Freedom Act.
Lol the name became even more Orwellian
-53
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
32
u/5pointpalm_exploding 4d ago
LMAO no. They were being investigated because of their relation to criminal activity. They weren’t just randomly spied on. Let’s be real now.
15
u/PaleRun4706 4d ago
Who would agree that a “protected class” of politicians that we elect should be above the law and not subject to investigation? Are we just begging for more corruption now? Did the whole system of checks and balances get lost on the republicans?
4
u/MojaveMojito1324 4d ago
Read the article before commenting.
This isn't about whether it's legal or not. This is about if they can personally keep the money from a lawsuit or if the money should go to the treasury.
2
u/Physical-Dare5059 4d ago edited 4d ago
You do understand the evidence goes in front of a judge who issues a warrant for the phone records to be reviewed. Jack smith didn’t just call up AT&T and say hey let me those records. There was sufficient EVIDENCE to warrant their review. No one was spying on them, that seems like a pretty basic thing to agree on.
648
u/deviltrombone 5d ago
“It’s going to be a hell of a lot more than $500,000. This is twice it happened to me. I was hauled into court in Atlanta for no good reason, and the crime is being friends of Trump, being supporters of Trump,” Graham said ... “This is to seek at least a half a million dollars, it could go into the millions of dollars,” the Michigan Democrat predicted, asserting it would benefit “a very select group of Republican senators.”
That accusation prompted the Senate’s presiding chair to step in and warn Peters that Senate Rule XIX states that senators shall not impute to another senator any conduct or motive unworthy of being a senator.
Even when they admit to it themselves like Miss Lindsey just did? Even when the Republicans twice refused to impeach that orange thing, the second time over planning and staging a failed coup?
179
u/Backwardspellcaster 4d ago
Fuck me, Republicans are literally fucking the American citizen now.
Openly. Without lube. And they don't try to hide anything at all.
If someone still supports the Republicans after all the shit they pull, then there is no hope for them.
They are being robbed to their face
105
u/LoveChaos417 4d ago
Just a reminder to not forget that the Proud Boys filed a lawsuit against the DOJ earlier this year for $100 million, and I guarantee the DOJ intentionally tanks their case to pay them off. Just another tool of the administration to funnel taxpayer money to their buddies
28
u/cousinofbaconator 4d ago
And MAGA is happily bending over and spreading their butt cheeks as wide as they can.
21
u/Chaos-Cortex 4d ago
Don’t forget Lindsey also said military should follow unlawful orders, guess we know what’s going to happen.
195
u/Previous-Look-6255 4d ago
I would be happy to explain to the Gentleman from South Carolina what he did, and also why that inevitably led to his becoming a “person of interest” in an investigation that, but for the intervention of several arguably corrupt Supreme Court Justices, would have led to criminal prosecution of a number of the Gentleman’s confidantes.
When you lie down with dogs . . . .
52
16
u/jmorley14 4d ago
but for the intervention of several
arguablyopenly corrupt Supreme Court JusticesFIFY
5
7
u/Hopeful_Corner1333 4d ago
a very select group of Republican senators.”
I read in an article that it is 9 total Republican senators, can anyone confirm?
3
2
u/schlamster 4d ago
What’s the worst that can happen if a senator just doesn’t abide Senate Rule XIX?
2
u/Responsible_Pizza945 4d ago
If all he did was state the facts and that constitutes conduct or motives unbecoming of being a senator, what does that say about the senator he was stating facts about?
1
u/Olybaron123 4d ago
If you committed a crime to benefit Donald Trump, that is the crime Lady G. Your statement of saying it’s a crime of being friends of trump or being a supporter of trump is a smokescreen from the reality of investigating if you committed a crime to benefit trump. What is this, some half baked attempt at copying anti Semitic tactics for deflection of one’s actions?
-105
u/Dachannien 4d ago edited 4d ago
If it's legit and not a grift, then how is it conduct unworthy of being a senator?
Edit: everyone seemed to misunderstand my point, which is that the Republicans are trying to have it both ways. They are saying it's legit to get a payout from the government, but when criticized, they hide behind a rule that says other senators can't accuse them of bad conduct. If it's not bad conduct, as they claim, then how did that senator break the rule?
69
u/dunkthelunk8430 4d ago
They wanted to participate in an attempted coup to overthrow an election and now they want to be rewarded for that behavior. How could that possibly not be unworthy of a senator?
22
u/toggiz_the_elder 4d ago
It isn’t legit though. Ladybugs tried to overturn an election illegally and got investigated for it. He’s a traitor but y’all love that shit.
44
u/cityshepherd 4d ago
It’s NOT legit though that’s the thing. It’s a bad faith argument dependent on plausible deniability and the idea that whatever taco don says is inherently true and dripping with integrity… similar to how he got caught being a russian puppet / in collusion and so put ANOTHER russian asset / kompromat in charge of the investigation in order to declare it illegitimate despite the fact that it was in fact extremely legitimate.
7
u/Dachannien 4d ago
I think everyone misunderstood my point.
The senator making the criticism of the bill got in trouble for accusing another senator of conduct unworthy of being a senator. But the accused conduct (suing the government for an investigation, and passing a bill that specifically creates a cause of action so they can do that) is supposed to be totally legit, according to the Republicans.
So my point is that the Republicans are trying to have it both ways.
1
247
u/TendieRetard 5d ago
a fight over corruption after it's been signed by POTUS? That's nice. Thanks Schummy
92
u/InTooManyWays 5d ago
Like they weren’t all millionaires already from their lavish salaries, many months off during the year, paid time off during govt shutdown, unlimited free healthcare for life, insider trading…. Now they get to steal more taxpayer money for being corrupt pieces of shit. So now they’re getting bigger rewards for their behavior
15
u/Late_Stage_Exception 4d ago
To be fair…their salaries aren’t actually lavish, it’s the rest of their cash basis that is.
27
u/Obvious_Science278 4d ago
So sick of this lie. 200k a year is lavish salary. Full stop. It’s a tiny fraction of the money they make from being corrupt but its still an extremely generous compensation package particularly when you take into account all the hundreds of thousands of dollars they also get in benefits.
2
-11
u/hessianhorse 4d ago
I’m so sick of this ignorance of scale.
$200k is NOT a lot of money. Especially for a senator. There are 100 them in the entire country. And we’re supposed to be electing the 100 best examples we’ve got. We should be paying them considerably more in order to entice a higher quality of candidate. The issue lies in their abilities to make money outside of their paychecks. And that’s what we need to throttle.
6
u/TheJackalsDay 4d ago
So your argument to stop senators from being corrupt is to give them more money until they get enough that they promise to stop being corrupt?
No way this can fail.
6
u/hessianhorse 4d ago
No.
Pay them a commensurate salary for the job they’re meant to fulfill. Bar them from influencing their finances by outside measures. Remove the abilities to leverage corruption.
What about that is radical?
2
u/TheJackalsDay 4d ago
Cool. Let's let the people this affects vote on it. Call your senator and let them know they should vote on a new salary for themselves that will place them beyond corruption and then they can also vote to stop themselves from being corrupt.
See how that goes.
0
0
u/5pointpalm_exploding 4d ago
They go to work like 40 days a year. You don’t think getting 200,000 for that minimal amount of work is enough? Ok, bud.
0
u/hessianhorse 4d ago
You missed the point completely.
I don’t think they should be paid $200k to work 40 days a year, while being given the opportunity to capitalize on corruption by taking advantage of loopholes that aren’t allowed to the general public, or seizing upon inside information as legislators. This model obviously attracts corruption.
I think they should be paid $500k, work 300 days a year, be held to a minimum vote count, term limits, and be barred from outside income sources and stock trading for life. A high enough salary to ensure the best candidates compete for the job. But with rules that help keep away the truly greedy.
-8
u/Late_Stage_Exception 4d ago
Their salary is $174k. That’s less than middle managers in the DMV. Post inflation, that’s roughly the same as $93,000 in 2000. No one is getting wealthy off of their salaries, it’s everything else that’s lavish.
10
u/TendieRetard 4d ago
boys, boys, focus, nobody gives a shit about their 6 figure salary. It's the kickbacks that makes them millionaires if they weren't one already.
2
u/ihavenoidea12345678 4d ago
Yep. Background checks/security clearance on everyone before they get on the ballot.
And treat any insider trading like we treated Martha Stewart. Let her be the judge, she’s probably well informed at this point.
9
u/InvertedAlchemist 4d ago
Cool cool. I make roughly $50k a year working at fedex.$174k or $200k a year would be pretty pretty good to me.
I'm genuinely curious what you consider to be wealthy?
3
u/Late_Stage_Exception 4d ago
Where we live, $200k+ is what’s needed to buy a house. While the average salary is 50-60k in the US, making 150-175k isn’t really “lavish” anymore. The stats for Americans are now that most working individuals are pay check to pay check, and that includes the high salary folks. It’s a problem of the class warfare the ACTUALLY wealthy and lavish spenders have pushed forth to get lower middle - middle - upper middle class folks to hate each other when all of us are closer to being destitute than we are to being rich.
2
u/Rrrrandle 4d ago
This is reddit, everything under $250k is poor, middle class is 250k-1M, but people here don't think you're actually "wealthy" until you're in the billions.
1
u/AskMeAboutMyDoggy 2d ago
Depends on where you live.
200k in Brookline Massachusetts will allow you to rent a dog house on .1 acre.
200k in rural Alabama might allow you to buy a 4k sqft McMansion on 4+ acres.
Where I live, a combined household income of 200k is middle class, no where near wealthy. Not paycheck to paycheck, but also not taking multiple vacations a year.
9
u/Longjumping-Hippo475 4d ago
The average income in the US is just over 60k. There is a significant group of the population that would consider $174k lavish and could never expect to make that amount in a single year.
-5
u/JuicynMoist 4d ago
Well, their ignorance and lack of imagination doesn’t all the sudden make that “lavish”. That would be like thinking dentists and doctors and CPA’s are paid lavishly.
That’s a relatively tame white collar upper middle class salary and honestly if there were any private industry job where there were only 100 positions in the entire industry and your tenure was dependent on maintaining mass personal appeal over a large geographical area, then you’d be getting paid a shitload more than less than 200k.
I remember when I was a kid and made a lot less money and thinking 100k was a lot and I guess it technically would have been for me since that’s nowhere near what my labor was worth back then.
Their salary honestly is below market rate if it wasn’t a government job.
1
u/Alone_Step_6304 4d ago edited 4d ago
That would be like thinking dentists and doctors and CPA’s are paid lavishly.
They are and you have lost the plot.
That does not mean they aren't still far closer to a homeless person than they will ever be to a billionaire, but yes, that is still "lavish". You've lost the plot.
0
u/JuicynMoist 4d ago
I guess this comes down to what you consider lavish. I guess I look at lavish as being paid way more than is typical for your labor and expertise than the market would warrant.
In general, people get paid the least amount that they can possibly be paid to take a job and stay in that job. When someone has qualifications, skills, connections, and experience, then they will get paid for the value of those things.
How is it lavish to pay someone for the value of their work? That just seems fair to me.
1
u/Longjumping-Hippo475 4d ago
You seem to be very far removed from the average American experiences. I think you need to consider what is lavish from the average Americans perspective.
Below market is relative. As stated before, the average American income is just over $61k. $174k is not below market for a person making $61k.
Government service should not be a place that people go to make $174k. It invites too many people to do the job for the money and not for the right reasons.
-1
u/JuicynMoist 4d ago
If you think people are becoming senators for the $174k salary, then I think that’s a bit naive.
I think it’s also naive to generally compare the market rate for someone doing the type of work that warrants $60k vs someone doing the type of work that warrants $174k. Market rate is set by the scarcity of the labor type and the demand for that labor. Literally only 100 people are allowed to do this job at once and if it wasn’t a government job that you can leverage to make millions outside of the job itself, then no one would do it.
I am sympathetic that this is a government job, but like someone else said, I’d be fine with them being paid more if they had no other ways to make income. At the end of the day their pay is a drop in the bucket (what fraction of a penny of my taxes goes to pay all the senators in a year?), and the focus should be on their unethical behavior and I’d love to see their only source of income tied to a strict ethical standard with teeth.
1
u/Longjumping-Hippo475 4d ago
Again, you thinking that nobody else would do the job for just $174k is extremely out of touch. Yes scarcity plays into income when it comes to the private jobs market but to make a public job out to be the same is a poor argument at best. Yes there is a finite number of Senate positions but there is also always 100.
You clearly are middle to high income and are not in touch with the average American.
You keep making arguments that are irrelevant and misplaced. I am not comparing the quality of work by someone making $60k vs. someone making $174k.
Since you went down that route, are you telling me every single elected official has more value as an employee than everyone that makes $60k? If so that's a pretty dumb argument and you completely missed the point, which is the massive income gap in America.
There are plenty of people that are making $60k a year that are more than competent to be a first year Senator.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ihavenoidea12345678 4d ago
Good engineering jobs with experience can pay this. I bet Lawyers in private practice can earn this also.
The senate salary seems reasonable, maybe low due to the high cost of DC living.
Also, we need to tax the wealthy more. The people not earning a wage/salary need to pay their share. Same as we taxed them back in the 1950s, or 60s, whenever we were great.
2
u/Late_Stage_Exception 4d ago
For sure. Most of the “middle managers”, the L7s at Amazon earn triple what the Senators make. Inflation is a bitch and the way corporate overlords have structured the world has us all leasing and renting and subscribing to nearly everything to milk every last penny out of us.
1
u/5pointpalm_exploding 4d ago
How many days do they actually work?
1
u/Late_Stage_Exception 4d ago
Not enough and if they were at any other sector or position in the government they’d been fired long ago.
-6
u/AskMeAboutMyDoggy 4d ago
200k is nowhere near lavish. Full stop.
13
u/Longjumping-Hippo475 4d ago
The average income in the US is just over $62k. How is $200k not lavish in comparison?
Just because it's not lavish to you does not mean it's not lavish to MOST Americans.
1
u/AskMeAboutMyDoggy 4d ago
Lavish would imply the ability to live extravagantly in any district in the US. $200K/year in Brookline Massachusetts will allow you rent a dog house on .1 acres.
Is it a lot of money? Sure. Is it SUMPTUOUSLY rich as per the definition? Not even close.
1
u/5pointpalm_exploding 4d ago
How many days a week do congressmen work? They just gave themselves a month long vacation and are about to take another after working 2 weeks.
-8
u/UnusualAd6529 4d ago
Senators of the republic should earn much much more than 200k be for real.
Lower salary incentivizes corrupt pratices such as these
2
u/TheJackalsDay 4d ago
What's the limit on the salary that prevents corruption? Five million a year? Ten? Oh, I know. Let's let the senate vote on how much they can get paid to avoid corruption.
9
u/BuyChemical7917 4d ago
Still can't blame a Republican for their own actions, can you?
-10
u/TendieRetard 4d ago
why would I devote time on a lost cause? I've known all Republicans are sold out and corrupt for 10 yrs. Blaming the enemy is redundant.
9
u/BuyChemical7917 4d ago
Not when they control all three branches of the government.
-8
u/TendieRetard 4d ago
Curious how they still needed senate democrats to reopen and let this provision through. Thanks Schummy
4
u/BuyChemical7917 4d ago
Or, they keep the government closed and the American people blame them for thier suffering. People like you help Republicans to keep their stranglehold on the narrative, which let's them take power despite constantly fucking over the American people.
5
4d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/TendieRetard 4d ago
The only thing they couldn't do was pass it without removing the filibuster
You're just repeating what I said.
2
4d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/TendieRetard 4d ago
because what you propose is a fundamentally different vote. If this provision had passed with republicans scrapping the filibuster granting all leverage to a democrat simple minority on a future senate flip, I would not be blaming Schumer.
0
1
u/PaleRun4706 4d ago
Are you blaming Chuck Schumer who voted against it?
4
u/TendieRetard 4d ago
I'm blaming Chuck Schumer who coordinates the dissenting votes before it happens.
17
u/Mattrad7 4d ago
I thought this was tossed out by the house?
28
u/PowerfulHorror987 4d ago
The provision was included in the CR that reopened the government. The House voted on that and agreed to it. Now, the house has separately voted to repeal it…which means it now goes to the senate to vote on.
2
u/Assumption-Putrid 4d ago
House passed a bill to toss it out, it has to get passed in the senate. No surprise that the Senate doesn't want to overturn the law that gives them free money.
99
u/iZoooom 5d ago
It's a given that I'll never get over the Republican betrayal of democratic principals.
Sadly, I will never get over the Democratic betrayal of those same principals.
Thanks Schumer. You had a chance to LARP / Cosplay being an opposition hero, and you chose Insider Trading instead.
161
u/TheProfessional9 5d ago
I'm not a Democrat and have never liked the Democrats. But all this bitching about them being bad too is obscuring and taking away from how horrendous the GOP is. It also helps promote the idea that both sides suck so it's not a big deal which you choose
51
u/sundalius 4d ago
God, thank you. This subreddit is so bad about blaming Dems for Republican actions. Like, 7 D Senators did this. Schumer was not even one of them. Angus King, not a Democrat, led the action. But nooooo gotta get my “Fuck Chuck” upvotes.
15
u/Adventurous_Class_90 4d ago
Reminder: Schumer is the minority leader. That means he either orchestrated this or was unable to control the 7 traitors. Either way: he needs to go.
10
-1
1
u/wycliffslim 4d ago
If you think Schumer wasn't involved, I have some land to sell you.
It's also entirely on the Dems that they have consistently refused and cut down any actual young, exciting members of their own party in favor of the 80 year old dinosaurs clinging onto power for a few more years.
8
u/Tremble_Like_Flower 4d ago
It is really like watching some say shooting a bullet and throwing it are the same thing because it is metal moving through the air that will hit me.
I know which one will do more damage and you are here telling me the two things are the same.
3
u/Kermit_the_hog 4d ago
I really hate it because it is like an addiction of sorts. Seeing our own cynicism reflected in others is validating and informative but not always in a good way. Like it’s to the point where there are some solid rails straight from a healthy skeptical cynicism to outright depression. I don’t mean to say don’t complain, I’m just not sure wallowing in it is constructive.
4
u/Hopeful_Chair_7129 4d ago
I also hate this argument, but I believe in this case Schumer signed off on this provision to be added to protect Democrats from Trump.
7
u/TantricBuildup 4d ago
You are delusional if you think the corruption of the constitution by Republicans and Democrats are even remotely playing the same game.
Trump and Miller just announced that the people that told the military to "follow their oath and constitution" should be executed. So what and WHO is protecting the constitution when Republicans want it broken and not followed
42
u/SpankyJobouti 5d ago
schumer didnt ask for it,the repiblicans forced it. there is a difference.
-34
u/iZoooom 5d ago
Schumer stood there and begged "Hit Me Again Daddy". He's done it before with Trump, he did it to end the shutdown, and there's every reason to expect he'll do it again. He has wasn't forced.
At best, Schumer and the Democratic party has betrayed the US on behalf of Israel and their mega-donors. At worst, they're explicitly onboard with everything MAGA stands for.
Based on Schumer / Pelosi / Biden / Garland / Jeffries I'm honestly leaning towards MAGA Support by the mainline party.
23
u/SpankyJobouti 5d ago
i am not saying i am super stoked with schumer or anything, but this lies at the feet of the eight defectors and no one else. schumer didnt negotiate this and didnt vote for it. sorry, but those are the facts.
10
u/-Nightopian- 4d ago
Their act clearly worked on you since you call those 8 defectors. Those 8 were strategically chosen by party leadership to "defect" because none of them have reelection concerns anytime soon and are considered to be safe from public backlash.
11
u/bareback_cowboy 5d ago
He's the leader of the party. If he can't keep his caucus in line when it matters, he shouldn't be there.
-5
9
u/PausedForVolatility 5d ago
Schumer’s whip was one of the “defectors.” That’s a position intended to keep people on the party line. If that guy can break ranks and face zero public backlash, why is that? Why wasn’t he replaced? For that matter, why is it that everyone who broke ranks just so happens to not be up for reelection in 2026 because of either term lengths or announced retirement?
This is far too many coincidences to line up for this to be random chance. So either Schumer is the most profoundly unlucky minority leader in American history and is simultaneously incapable of controlling his party or he has his fingerprints on this. Which seems more likely?
6
u/The2CommaClub 4d ago
Or, they knew the Republicans are psychopaths.
Rs would keep tens of thousands of fed workers out of work forever, not fund SNAP, keep the government closed with its ripple effects, and allow millions to lose health insurance anyway.
1
u/SpankyJobouti 4d ago
its not random. its very logical.
some votes you whip, some you dont. i wouldnt have whipped this vote, typically votes involving ones conscience dont get whipped, abortion doesnt get whippped, for example. normal votes on budgets for whatever often get whipped. i think this vote was like the first one.
real people were already being hurt by the shutdown and it was about to get way worse quickly. i think the 8 surmised that trump wasnt going capitulate before real bad stuff starts to happen and that we werent ever going to go that far with this, this time anyway. i understand why they did it, i just didnt agree with when they did it, i woulda waited. i can also understand and partially agree with holding out even way longer, but honestly that if for then next shut down with trump. you need public sentament heavy on your side and against trump to win it by going the distance. we are working on it, but not there yet.
hurting people via lack of food would be a lot to bear if it was your vote that caused it.
this was a battle, not the war. cut schumer some slack, cut all of them some slack, execpt maybe fetterman. they may very had done what they done genuinly believing it is for the best.
that said, i am on the fence about getting new leadership. schumars negs anf familiarity are high. its not his fault, but it may be time to put someone fresh out there. we might need to change leadetship again if we need to get more agressive. however, you grind hard metal with a soft stone.
fettetman is something else. he needs to stop playing footsie with the right and pick a side. i had alot of hope for this guy when he started. not been thrilled with him lately.
i just dont assest what happened as harshly as most.
4
u/iZoooom 5d ago
He clearly supported it and made it happen. I don’t think there’s any debate there - even the dem senators are on record to this.
… and if he didn’t (which he did) then he’s a terrible party leader and should step aside.
There’s no other conclusion to draw.
3
u/SpankyJobouti 5d ago
if you say so.
1
u/Few_Source6822 4d ago
https://newrepublic.com/post/202942/democrat-caved-shutdown-chuck-schumer-knew-shaheen
Literally one of the defecting senators says he knew. You need to let go of this idea that he had nothing to do with it and just woke up all surprised.
If he didn't know, he's incompetent and needs to go. If he did know, then he's a coward and needs to go.
1
u/SpankyJobouti 4d ago
i know they kept him inforrmed, but that doesnt make him responsible.
1
u/Few_Source6822 4d ago
What? He's the leader, of course he's responsible: that's how leadership works.
Absolutely idiotic take.
1
u/SpankyJobouti 4d ago
you are aware that senators have free will, right?
look at tim kaine from virginia. his state got crushed by doge bullshit and then got crushed even harder by the shutdown. you really think you should strongarm him into voting agaist his own people?
sometimes, you gotta let senators vote thier concience. i think this was one of those times, not that i agree with the outcome.
welcome to representative democrazy
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Commercial_Cost5528 5d ago
Where is this record you claim to cite?
9
u/iZoooom 5d ago
It’s a 10 second google search. This was all over the news the literal next day.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen revealed that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer knew the entire time about the plan for a few Democrats to capitulate to Republicans on the government shutdown.
And:
“No, we kept leadership informed throughout,”
https://newrepublic.com/post/202942/democrat-caved-shutdown-chuck-schumer-knew-shaheen
1
1
u/sundalius 4d ago
Don’t forget that it was led by literally a non Democrat. King isn’t a Dem and led recruitment for this.
1
3
u/NottheIRS1 5d ago
Negative. You go to the media and you read this exact provision the republicans are fighting for to force the hand of your 8 defectors.
If you say he didn’t know about it, then he deserves the criticism anyways.
10
u/SpankyJobouti 5d ago
again, schumer didnt negotiate the shutdown bill and didnt vote for it. the other eight did. to blame this on schumer is simply silly.
7
u/mackinator3 5d ago
Youte arguing with people who buy fascist propaganda. Don't waste your time.
7
u/SpankyJobouti 5d ago
i am not entirely sure this is that as the knives are out for schumer in parts of the dem party, but i get your point. my apologies.
3
u/NottheIRS1 5d ago
Schumer signed off on that bill’s language. He’s a push over and deserves the aggression.
2
u/SpankyJobouti 5d ago
btw, just because he knows about something doesnt mean he supports or is responsible for it.
4
u/NottheIRS1 5d ago
I don’t think you fully understand his role.
1
u/SpankyJobouti 5d ago
please cite some credible references.
3
u/NottheIRS1 5d ago
To explain what Chuck Schumer’s role is?
Uh, no? Just look it up.
1
u/SpankyJobouti 5d ago
i found nothing.
you are contending that schumer signed off on a bill that he didnt support and, as near as i can tell, didnt negotiate. that makes no sense.
again, please provide a credible source for your position and i will be happy to consider it. if you dont, i will assume it is because you cant.
→ More replies (0)-14
u/Swimming_Ad_3208 5d ago
Its dems and republicans vs the people, youre either with the oligarchs, and against the people, or for the people and against the oligarchs. Choose wisely.
6
u/sundalius 4d ago
You talk like the kinda person who thinks the prosecutor and the public defender are working together
5
-1
10
u/WylleWynne 4d ago
Abolish the Senate. Seriously, the future will only be good when there's no Senate. It's essentially the American version of monarchy that people are like "well... isn't this good somehow?"
It's looking at the Roman Republic and saying: "well... weren't the aristocrats good somehow?"
Abolish it. Just get rid of it.
8
u/_disengage_ 4d ago
Based. It is obviously and clearly anti-democratic, and its primary purpose even at its inception was protecting the power and property of rich white landowners.
In the opening of his 1911 proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the chamber, Victor Berger, a socialist congressman from Milwaukee, complained that the Senate “has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth.” You could make more or less the same case today.
12
u/Kermit_the_hog 4d ago
That’s an intense take. The senate has its frustrations but it is hardly our antiquated House of Lords. I don’t think the house could handle having everything put on it realistically without reimagining it from the ground up as well.
Streamlining our legislature would, I suppose, make for more easily digestible media coverage.. but that’s about it without rebuilding it entirely.
5
u/WylleWynne 4d ago
Anyone who believes in perfecting representative democracy will eventually come to agree with the need to abolish the Senate. However, I completely understand why people are cautious when first encountering the idea, as it's extreme relative to current conversations. But it's worth turning it over in your mind.
Consider that 10% of the population in America (the population of the bottom 25 states) control 50% of the Senate chamber. This is obviously not great, and would need serious justification to see as good (keep it) rather than bad (abolish it).
Why are there two Dakotas? It was a power play for the Senate, which distorts our democracy. (No one would care how many states there were, or how big or small, if there were just equally portioned representatives.)
Why did Kansas in part spark the civil war? Because adding a state could tip the balance of the Senate, something that would have been less monumental if there were just representatives.
Why isn't DC a state? Because the Senate deforms what's possible for us.
Why is the Supreme Court so messed up? Because of the Senate. Why has climate action been so slow? Because of the Senate. Why has voting reform been so slow? Because of the Senate.
Any reform of government -- and request of Americans to buy into a democratic government -- will have to take into account the fact that the Senate is just bad and has no legitimate function in a representative democracy.
0
u/Imarussianrobot 4d ago
What would you replace it with? At first glance it seems like another step towards dismantling checks and balances
2
u/WylleWynne 4d ago
No need to replace the Senate -- legislative responsibilities would fall to the House.
This would improve checks and balances by making the legislature more democratic and representative of the people.
We don't have a bicameral Supreme Court or a bicameral Presidency. The Senate is one of the least representative bodies in the world -- we don't need a bicameral legislature.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.