The Republican party will probably have control of Congress again next year, so Biden has to act fast. His age is also a factor, but you have to think that he’s learned from Obama’s lack of success when he had control of both houses, and is moving quickly to get things done. His bill will be chopped and changed. ‘Moderate’ Democrats will try to use their leverage to get their pet projects added no doubt. Let’s hope it doesn’t end up too watered down. Poor US citizens could really use some help, and if the country wants to retain its position, it has to invest in health and education.
It’s become even sillier than that. It still takes only 50 votes to a pass a bill, but there has been a tradition of allowing unlimited debate on a bill before it makes it to a vote. Over the years how that is defined has changed, and the filibuster was created as way of a single person unilaterally extending debate in an attempt to prevent the Bill going to a vote. Originally the senate could wait until he chose to sit down and then vote, because physically eventually everyone has to give up. However, over time the rules changed to make it easier to extend the filibuster and so the process of cloture was brought in to enable a certain % of the senate to vote to end debate and force a vote on the bill. That cloture limit currently stands at 60 (of 100). So, 60 votes to allow a vote and from that point only 51 votes to pass the Bill.
So when you hear about eliminating the filibuster, what that typically means is lowering the cloture threshold to 50 so that bills with enough votes to pass could not be prevented from a vote by a minority. However, the rules have become so stupid that debate isn’t actually even required anymore. Today, all that is needed is for a single Senate aide to send an email saying they object ending debate. The Senator doesnt even need to follow through and do anything, simply the filing of the email will then require a cloture vote to be taken to move the Bill to a vote. So, alternatives to lowering the threshold for cloture are being discussed like returning to the talking filibuster, which would require a single person to stand up on the floor and legit talk…and once they are done the vote could be taken without the need for cloture.
I have been impressed by Biden so far. I thought he might be too bland to get anything done, but even at that point he would have been massively preferable to the abomination that was Trump.
I thought Biden would end up being hated by Republicans for being too socialist, and hated by many Democrats for being too moderate. Sort of like what happened to Obama.
Instead Biden seems to be going after it with the energy and vigor of a much younger man. He is a man on a mission. And the policies, while not exactly straight from the heart of Bernie Sanders, AOC and the like, are definitely leaning in that direction.
The Republicans will criticize him for being too socialist. Well, even if he was conservative by UK standards, the current Republican Party would still accuse him of being too socialist. That’s how far they have moved to the right.
So shine on sleepy Joe. Get as much done as you can, while you can.
Yeah, I’m quite impressed with his 2b + 1.8b infrastructure and social plans. Your country needs much more than that I guess, but it’s better than doing nothing, which seemed basically to be Trump’s position.
Also, his willingness to charge the 1% most richest people for this is encouraging, and more than fair. Hopefully he’ll come through with it, and it won’t be torpedoed by people inside his own party. If that isn’t the case and it can go ahead, it should do your country some good.
He has a very impressive senior team behind him. Many of them have not just been burned in the past by what in hindsight was bad political strategy (bending over backwards to win republican support for the ACA), but were often on the other side of the debate at the time. Ron Klain, his CoS, has a record of that going all the way back to the Bush-Gore recount in Florida, in which he was adamant that while they thought they were in a legal debate the GOP thought they were in a fight to the death in which nothing was off the table.
Biden is underwhelming, in himself, in various ways. However…
He’s a grown up, comfortable in his own skin, and knows the game. With all his clout and connections he has assembled a great team. He doesn’t need to be the star. He sees the team as the star. Compare/contrast with Trump, who kept firing people and was furious when they didn’t kiss the Papal ring in deference to his excellence.
I think Biden has learned from the years of trying to build bridges with people who aren’t acting in good faith. If he meets anyone who wants to work on a solution, he will cross the aisle. But if all they are doing is playing for time and bogging him down, with no intent of working together, Biden is wiser to that, and will get on with his agenda to do as much as he can, while he can.
In a series of motions filed to District Court Judge Peter Cahill, Chauvin’s lawyer, Eric Nelson, claimed his client was deprived of a fair trial, adding there was prosecutorial and jury misconduct, errors of law at trial and that the verdict was contrary to law.
I watched an in-depth news report a few weeks ago regarding the trial and how it was conducted. There seem to have been a number of procedural and legal issues with it - evidence not admitted into the trial for instance.
The legal analysis was that it was highly likely a new trial would be granted.
This is not a comment on the rights or wrongs of the case or the guilt or innocence of the accused - it is a comment about the Legal process that was followed and the perception of that Legal process.
If we’re treating black lives matter that broadly, given the event in question was the anniversary of MLK’s I have a dream speech, something that is celebrated every year, then the requirement to answer no to that question essentially removes black people from the jury pool.
The Opening Arguments podcast claimed it was pretty unlikely that the procedural process will be deemed to have been unfair and a new trial was therefore not realistic. Guess we will see.
This analysis was taken from the post verdict episode.
They’ve released a new episode today which goes into good detail about why this re-trial has virtually no chance of being granted. I don’t want to summarise it incorrectly so I suggest listening to the episode.
Yeah, Andrew Torres is quick to remind people he isn’t a criminal lawyer, but what he explains well is very much the consensus opinion. And if anything, I think that underplays the uniformity of opinion over this.
The judge has some latitude to exercise in determining how things will go in the trial, and it is within their discretion. Chauvin’s lawyers can bleat all they like. He will be in jail for a long time, and rightly so.