Read on Twitter
The action here is in #4.
The Senate might *seem* different, but Democrats would have no choice but to come to a 2001-style arrangement. It's an identical political situation, and the Senate loves this sort of precedent. Let's play it out... THREAD https://twitter.com/myhlee/status/1346578944036900865
The Senate might *seem* different, but Democrats would have no choice but to come to a 2001-style arrangement. It's an identical political situation, and the Senate loves this sort of precedent. Let's play it out... THREAD https://twitter.com/myhlee/status/1346578944036900865
First, understand that Democrats with 50+1 votes do not have control of the Senate in any meaningful way without an organizing resolution that recognizes their majority and control of committees. 1/x
The Senate is a continuing body, so existing committee chairs and committee assignments remain in place absent a *new* resolution. Here's the rub: that new resolution is debatable, i.e., subject to filibuster, so in reality, the two party leaders have to agree. 2/x
As article notes, McC likely gravitates to the 2001 resolution (S. Res. 8, 107th Cong.) Goose/gander. That means even splits on all committees, with D gavels. Even $ split. Special procedures to deal with deadlocks. 3/x
Can Dems just "go nuclear" instantly and destroy the filibuster to get majorities on all committees? Yes, but Manchin already ruled out gutting filibuster. Zero chance Manchin changes his mind *on this,* where the deal on offer is what Lott/Daschle negotiated in 2001.
4/x
4/x
I *do* think Manchin (and Sinema/Kelly) would attack minority rights in the Senate, but not right out of the gate, and not to deny the 50-50 nature of this hypothetical new Senate. 5/x
The eventual Manchin flip-flop on protection of minority rights could *only* come if Republicans took a scorched earth approach that was *substantially worse* than what Democrats did w/ Trump. That's a high bar. 6/x
As long as Biden gets most of his Cabinet (and he will) and judges are moving at least as smoothly as they did under Pat Leahy in 2007-08,* or Grassley in 2015-16, then there's no reason to go insane w/ filibuster-gutting (from a Manchin perspective). 7/x
(*That's a joke in the prior tweet. Leahy made it *very* difficult to get nominees through; Dems likely think Grassley did, too. No need to resolve that here.) 8/x
In any case, back to the 50-50 Senate question. You know who agreed to the Daschle-Lott deal in 2001? The three Dem leaders -- Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray -- and their senior Democrat (and presumptive Senate President pro tem) Pat Leahy. 9/x
I recommend everyone go read the discussion in the Senate when the 2001 resolution went through. It's January 5, 2001, and it's the debate surrounding passage of S. Res. 8. You can look it up at http://www.congress.gov . END
ADDENDUM: the Senate, as broken as it is, and I don't want to litigate that here, ultimately works on acquiescence to norms and customs. Nobody really ever gets true "control." You just get some prerogatives, and then have to work out the rest.
