Our ability to stop their legislation largely depends upon being able to use the filibuster. Trump will be able to use executive orders as President Obama did. He will have wide latitude in foreign policy. They can also use reconciliation for budget items if they square with the Byrd Rules for reconciliation. So, they can still inflict a great deal of harm. However, if they do not have the votes to end the filibuster, then we can use the filibuster to defeat bad legislation. It appears that there may be 4 votes against ending the filibuster: Lisa Murkowski, Orrin Hatch, Susan Collins and John McCain. I believe that they will not vote to end the filibuster. Orrin Hatch has already signaled that he won’t vote to end the filibuster:
“Are you kidding?” he said with some vehemence. “I’m one of the biggest advocates for the filibuster. It’s the only way to protect the minority, and we’ve been in the minority a lot more than we’ve been in the majority. It’s just a great, great protection for the minority.”
But with the GOP holding just a 52-seat majority next year, it would take only two defections to end that threat, and some Senate Republicans already have expressed strong reservations about the idea.
On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) may have put a dagger in the scheme.The latter, known as the “nuclear option,” could rewrite the rules with just 51 votes.
Again, if they cannot get the votes to end the filibuster, then they will find themselves unable to push extremist controversial legislation and Supreme Court nominees.
Moreover, the following moderate (very relative term here) US Senators might be willing to work with us on the more extreme legislation that they try to push through : Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins. They are pro-choice. John McCain won’t support extremist anti-choice Supreme Court nominees. They will have 52 Republican US Senators. If Manchin would join in voting against an extremist anti-choice US Senator, then they would not have enough votes to confirm. If not, we need one more vote to oppose the confirmation of an extremist Supreme Court nominee.
These are the Byrd Rules:
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:
- if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
- if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
- if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
- if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
- if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
- if it recommends changes in Social Security.
Changing the Affordable Care Act likely will not be budget neutral. Their tax plan will likely not be budget neutral. Many other legislative items on their agenda won’t be budget neutral either. If they are not and they are unable to end the filibuster, then we can stop a lot of their extremist agenda.
There is hope !!!