>

2000 mules
This seems pretty big. Good work Schumer & Team D.
Looks like 68 votes in favor too. 16 Republicans! >

18 Republicans! The new Congress is sworn in January 3rd. >

Big thanks to Republicans doing the right thing!! Some of them actually are good people but forced to vote in line with their party sadly >

If they were truly good, they would choose to vote for the right thing regardless. >

There used to be a decent number of Republican House Reps and Senators who worked with Democrats on common legislation, but those groups have basically been fully eroded. I'm not sure there are more than 1-2 in the House now and possible 4-5 in the Senate.
It would be nice to go about to a time when you actually got a little bit of compromise from your government. >

Biden has the most bipartisan support in a long time, secret congress might be a stretch but there’s obviously more going on behind the scenes >

Biden has been in federal politics at the highest level for 50 years. He knows literally everybody. He’s literally that guy who can appear behind you because he knows that the Texas 3rd rep has a mandatory meeting on every third Tuesday at 1730 in the Capitol grille on the third table on the left with the steep canyon protection group. 
Even his worst professional enemies are people he’s broke even with idk playing poker and spent 5,000 hours working document procedure with. >

He hasn't been in Congress since 2008, though. >

He was literally the VP from 2009-2017 >

So he was in the White House >

Having Collins involved in the negotiating process after she gave Trump a pass is comical, but mostly depressing. >

And Manchin, after not being in support of changing the filibuster, even just for one, his own voting rights bill that he co-sponsored. >

The state legislature part is something I’d hoped they’d address. I’m not sure how things’ll play out regarding the SCOTUS on the state legislature theory, but this is a start. >

I've been saying for weeks that this bill took care of the most troubling part of Moore. But it's likely the SCOTUS will basically expand the regessives power to do what they're doing now. Expect more blatantly gerrymandered maps and much more rampant voter suppression. >

The Supreme Court is holding off on their Harper v Moore ruling so that this bill and the new congress can get settled in. They are gonna come up with a “workaround” once they know the Dems won’t have the power to counter them. >

time to size the court to match the districts.  and maybe two more to handle extra workloads and recused occasions >

The time to do that was two years ago along with filibuster reform. It’s not happening now. >

That wasn't happening with sinema. Ever. >

Even if she and Manchin were on board… suppose the remaining Koch brother writes a $100m cheque to the Swiss bank account of the wife of the first Senator who defects. How long would it take to find someone? >

Suppose having 100 senators doesnt work, suppose a massive revolution to force it to happen doesnt work, suppose it works and doesnt work. This whole line is dumb af. >

You're righ, citizens united made this inevitable.  Somethings gotta give >

No. It didn't. We have had more progress in the past 2 years then we have had in ages. Engaging in baseless, pointless doomerism literally only helps the right wing. For every person lying to themselves and others that "Omg, nuthin ever changes" they discourage others to vote. Literally blocking change simply because they dont pay attention. >

Well when it turns out the punishment for trying to overthrow our democracy is at most a couple of years, we can almost guarantee they will try again. >

We haven't seen how this story ends yet. If this is still the case in '25, you might be onto something but I think that '23 will be a bad year for Trump and many of his lackeys >

I mean, I hope so, but we've been saying that since 2016. >

2016-2020 he was president and nearly broke our democracy. these last two years he's not and the DOJ and various states are gunning for him. Our democracy still hasn't healed and it definitely isn't going to be repaired until he is held to account. >

This is good, but everyone forgets that Trump suddenly fired several key members of the cabinet after he lost the election. And he replaced them with flunkies who he thought would carry out his orders. He really thought that these people would order or carry out his orders to send troops on the capital or do whatever. This is a colossal issue. Was this addressed anywhere?
Edit:  the people he appointed were temporary, I think the term is recess appointments. They were not approved by Congress. Perhaps there is a way of taking away that power after an apparent lost election. >

Hard to see how it could be addressed. That power to replace cabinet members is a key feature of the Presidency, right? >

Cabinet members have to be approved by the Senate, but 99.99% of the time, its largely ceremonial, because its considered the president's prerogative to staff his own administration. Only 27 cabinet nominations in US history have been rejected; you can see the list here. 
So theoretically the Senate can reject a candidate for being too incompetent or too much a lap dog. But in actuality, it rarely happens.
Too, when the position is vacant or prior to a confirmation hearing, a high ranking career bureaucrat (who was not required to go through Senate confirmation) will be the acting Secretary, and there's some leeway for the president to choose which one will serve. >

now to get the house to pass it. Hopefully there's enough votes? >

New Congress hasn't started yet, and should pass easily. >

Very valuable reform indeed. No way the veep gets to decide an election. >

To the chagrin of fascists >

Yep, they just put things out there knowing their cult disregards truth for belief. >

I'm sure the Republicans will figure out a way to weaponize the legislation. >

You only need 20 Greens and 87 taylors to do it and with zero evidence.....
They have certainly managed to elect two rooms full of lickspitles and morons. >

Can someone explain to me what this means? >


In the time after voting ended in 2020 and results were certified, Trump and his team argued that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to interfere with the counting of electoral votes because the law as it currently stands names the vice president as the presiding officer over the joint session of Congress where those votes are counted. 
The update passed by the Senate would clarify that the vice president's role in the proceedings is purely ceremonial.
Importantly, the measure also would raise the bar for objecting to a state's slate of electors. As it stands now, it takes just one member of the House and one senator to challenge a state's electors and send both chambers into a potentially days-long debate period, even without legitimate concerns. The new legislation would raise the threshold for an objection to 20% of the members of each chamber. >

This doesn't really head off Jan 6 so long as Republicans control the House and Senate & have the same number of challenges in 2024 as in 2020. All they need to do is take the Senate in 2024, get sworn in January 3, and do the same thing January 6 - this time successfully. They won't even need the riot for that; this has literally happened in American history already. >

I mean, they would need 20 Senators to object now, which they didn’t come close to in 2020. >

Thanks for dialing back the hysteria. It’s needed here. >

With complete disrespect, after January 6, not being constantly REASONABLY in fear of the still numerous avenues for a fascist takeover is just plain naive. There's a group of people who know there's only one way for them to get and retain power. They will do anything, using any loophole, to get it. If you are not already convinced of that, I sincerely sincerely do not know what will get to you. >

Fascism will get to you >

I'm just here to read all the upset comments from the GOP pussies. >

Don't worry, they'll be comforted when Donny Boy comes along and grabs them. >

We'll see if they uphold the law, because it seems current ones are only for the working people >

You cannot overthrow democracy…only we can lmao…yep, pretty much. >

A promising event, but I'm gonna go ahead and save my excitement for when it passes the House, too. >

Now they need to repeal the Permanent Appointment Act that capped the number of representatives in the House at 435. >

Yup. This law is why we have representatives from Verizon instead of from Virginia, Microsoft instead of Missouri, and Chase instead of California. 
This, right fuckin here. >

You know what would head off another Jan. 6th incident? Prosecuting the man who would have benefitted the most had it worked. Let's try that. >

I'm glad the senate passed the vote so WON'T have another January 6th again. >

Manchin has some brass fucking balls commenting on our Democracy hanging by a thread, considering he singlehandedly shot down voting rights reform earlier this year. >

It falls short if it doesn't include language that compels presidential candidates and their VPs to release tax records going back 6-8 years. >

True but they have to get it to actually pass the fillibuster, including that would doom the bill >

Perhaps Dems should learn how to fight like Republicans. The language is include or the bill fails. Then let the Rs explain to the public why they don't want the language included.
But Dems don't have the spine for that kind of fight. That's the difference between one side and the other. Republicans will put up a fight, even when they're on the wrong side. Dems will back down, even when they're on the right side. >

Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about >

They did actual work before the new Congress comes in?!
Why do I automatically feel skeptical about this? >

So all what it takes is passing a new law?  Who knew?
Maybe we should pass some gun control laws to end gun violence! 
Wait ..... >

Maybe we should actually enforce the gun laws in the books first before talking about restricting firearms to good honest hard working citizens that comprise over 95% of gun owners. Let’s get rid of knives and forks while we are at it so people don’t get so fat. Then we can get rid of cars so there won’t be anymore car crashes that kill innocent children. >

My sarcastic point was that a new law won't change people's behavior. >

Yeah I know, sometimes I get a thought in my head and have to let it out. >


bill now goes to the House, which in September passed a similar electoral reform measure, with nine Republicans voting with all Democrats in favor. >

This is good right >

Took em long enough. >

Until the clowns that supported and took part in Jan 6 are brought to justice (talking about politicians), this will happen again. >

Will it pass unscathed in the House? >

Doesn't this have to pass the House now?  Anything the Dems want, the Republicans will happily sacrifice each other to kill. >

How is this in the spending bill?  I thought the spending bill goes through reconciliation, and has to meet budget-impacting criteria to avoid filibuster?  Or is it that Republicans didn't have the vote to filibuster the spending bill? >

Great. Now rid us of the electoral college and jerrymandering while you’re at it. And introduce ranked-choice voting. >

$3m of our taxes to conclude nothing happened but that we need more laws. 
Government. >

The left wants to make stealing elections legal. >

So far, most of the cheating and ballot stuffing (or attempts) have been by Republicans. You got any sources for Dems? Would really like to see it