Senate Parliamentarian E MacDonough seems like a confused soul !!!

Posts 12 · Viewed 3846 · Go to Last Post

· Snapshot 0

Like · Likedby · 0

In June 2020, Senate Parliamentarian Betty MacDonough provided a decision to Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) ruling that a vote on the senator's WTO withdrawal resolution was in order.[19]

However, she reversed herself two weeks later after considering new arguments regarding the timetable requirements from Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).[20]

So she seems to be confused and appears to keep changing her mind with new arguments.

If she does not reverse herself this time with immigration, she should be dismissed, fired or ignored for her cruelty to humans and lack of empathy; since the procedural rulings are officially made by the president of the Senate.

Moreover, the role of the senate parliamentarian is only advisory, and the Presiding Officer may overrule the advice of the parliamentarian.

She had the chance to do something really good, but she blew it; now God will do it through someone else, unless she repents and reverses herself. How could she be so cruel, heartless and cold blooded when even trump said he would ok it for the walls.

" Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.

Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee."

Proverbs 3:27-28

Any thoughts?

Last edited: 20-Sep-21 04:37 AM

Last edited: 20-Sep-21 04:49 AM

bairaghi

· Snapshot 7

Like · Liked by · 0

The reason Elizabeth MacDonough gave for ruling against including immigration reform in budget reconciliation is pretty sound and strong. If democrats can give GC to a certain subgroup with 51/49 senate majority without 60 votes now, tomorrow republicans can rescind GC to certain subgroup with same 51/49 senate majority. It is against a law. It will set a bad precedent and is like opening a pandoras box. There is no alternatives to counter this reasoning. Schumer is only saving his face.

Nepa123

· Snapshot 17

Like · Liked by · 0

You seem legalistic !!!

Laws are supposed to be made for the benefit of people, not the other way around.

You are not going to torture millions of people to keep the law, are you?

If the law is against the good of people, change the law, that is the right way to go.

Until 18 August, 1920, it was illegal for women to vote, if that law was not changed, Betty McDounough probably would not have the current job.

May be your fear is that tomorrow republicans' will rescind GC to certain subgroup and this fear is making you feel that it is ok to not get GC for millions of people today. Are you going to sacrifice your today for fear of tomorrow which may or may not happen?

Does denying GC to TPS DACAs etc today guaranty that republicans' won't rescind GC for certain subgroup with 51/50 ?Whether you believe or not, life is already a Pandora's box, so mysterious and marvelous, and too wonderful for comprehension.

Even some republicans may think about giving more GCs to more more people if that is needed for the good of the country or the people, what will you do then, Bairaghi, will you also tell them it's against the law???

“Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial.

We should be brave enough to change the law when it brings goodness to people around.

Even constitution has amendments and it needs to be improved with time and circumstance.

There are two kinds of laws

1. Man made laws,- they are usually flawed and needs ongoing improvement

2. Divine Law - they are perfect and only God can change them

If you insist that man made law must be followed , no matter what; then it makes you the slave of law; is that what you want to be? FYKI, America is against slavery :)

America is a good country, it gave citizenship to slaves who could be bought and sold just like animals, one of them recently became the POTUS, most TPS, DACA and other humans are younger generation, smart, educated and probably better than typical Americans. Why should they not be given citizenship?

They are already living here, working here, and have nowhere better to go, it is good for America to give them citizenship and make them realize complete freedom. Of course it needs to be done systematically depending on how long they have already lived here and several other sensible criteria.

Don't you agree?

Last edited: 20-Sep-21 05:10 AM

Last edited: 20-Sep-21 05:20 AM

Last edited: 20-Sep-21 05:23 AM

Last edited: 20-Sep-21 05:46 AM

bairaghi

· Snapshot 34

Like · Liked by · 0

Do i wish MacDonough include immigration reform in reconciliation bill. 1000%. in fact i m in favor of even broader immigration reform. Tara wish ra reality is different. Humanity, sympathy, it doesnt hold in court of law. Humanity, sympathy, thats why they gave TPS to nepalis.
At the end of the day, eveybody, democrats and republicans, they both are trying to save their ass. They dont want to give the other the credit of passing immigration reform. I vividly remember 2008, when bush tried to pass immigration reform and democrats killed it because of pressure from black caucuses. Only scenario where immigration reform passes is when republicans bring immigration reform while in government and democrats support it. But democrats wont do it. Its politics.
I m not against TPS to GC. I m just telling what i see. They cant cancel TPS, even if Trump wins 2024, tesaile baru advance in your life/career while you have TPS and you will find another way to adjust your status.

bairaghi

· Snapshot 53

Like · Liked by · 0

Its not what i want or wish or agree, that matters. Its what democrats or republicans want. I m just trying to show reality, instead of selling false hope.

bairaghi

· Snapshot 76

Like · Liked by · 0

And its just common sense. They wont allow democrats to give GC to 8 million people with just 51/49 majority. Democrats are just selling dreams to show atleast they tried. Note to TPS holders, its just like a breakup with ur gf. Sooner u realize its over and move on with your life, better for you. Atleast you wont have wasted your valuable times in false hopes.

westcoastlad

· Snapshot 107

Like · Liked by · 0

This is not just 51/49 majority lol. It’s majority in 3 branches of government: congress, house, and the Presidency. It does not happen that often. Republicans play hardball when necessary; for eg appointing new justice in place of RBG. But Democrats are known to be wimps and losers. So more likely than not, they will not overrun this decision by Betty Mac.

nepali_guy112

· Snapshot 214

Like · Liked by · 0

3 branches of government are legislative, executive, and judiciary, just a FYI.

Last edited: 20-Sep-21 12:00 PM

BiratSwaroop

· Snapshot 233

Like · Liked by · 0

Yeah, her argument is not compelling either. She is a lawyer not a policy person not an economist who can tell what is this policy's budget impact. Economists have said it does impact budget.
Also her argument seemed flawed as well as out of the box where she talks emotional sentiment over people coming to this country facing challanges, etc etc, why such argument? why not simply say it does not impact this or that? why so sentimental about those who are expected to be covered if coverage is not feasible under the rule?

pandeyji

· Snapshot 241

Like · Liked by · 0

its all politics just wait and watch...

my prediction

dems will propose new thing

or she will get fired eventually

if not dems will look big hypocrites ......

bairaghi

· Snapshot 278

Like · Liked by · 0

@Biratswaroop i think u got her explanation wrong. From my understanding, what she is trying to say is, “ current bill is far reaching, more impactful and encroaches federal law than is allowed in budget reconciliation. Giving GC to 8 million people by overstepping federal law with a budget reconciliation rather than passing it through senate. Only full senate can write the senate law. This bill is blatantly makes it clear its about policy than its about budget. Budget reconciliation should be about budget not changing federal law.” Republican might even go to court if democrats try to jam it through because now MacDonough made it clear its against the law/senate procedure. FYI she is like a senate lawyer. Just google it, if you are not sure abt her role. Her job is to give legal advice to senate, not enforce it (Democrats can ignore it if they have balls which they dont). But you wont go against your lawyers advice, do you ? Im just explaining what she is saying. Meanwhile I m all in for GC to TPS.

Last edited: 20-Sep-21 01:35 PM

westcoastlad

· Snapshot 296

Like · Liked by · 0

In my opinion, Democrats can do immigration reform in a bipartisan way on paper. Republicans support can be gained if they propose good border security. I simply don’t understand why Democrats oppose solid border security; it is good for the country. But Democrats are strangely opposed to it. I’m convinced Democrats are the party of endless stream of cheap labor. They do not care about Daca or Tps. If they have maintained tight border restriction this year, this bill could have been passed in bipartisan way. Tldr; I hate Democratic Party.

Please log in to reply to this post

You can also log in using your Facebook