Saturday, March 02, 2019

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Could Pass The Resolution Of Disapprove-- Unless Kyrsten Sinema Moves To Save Trump

>


Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), the furthest right Democrat in the Senate, has, according to ProgressivePunch, been voting far less progressively than any other Democrat in the Senate and less progressively than Kentucky and Louisiana Republicans Rand Paul and John Kennedy! He crucial vote score is exactly the same as Susan Collins' (R-ME), Mike Lee's (R-UT) and Ted Cruz's (R-TX). She tends to never disappoint Trump. But say for a moment that when McTurtle brings up the Resolution of Disapproval, she can somehow be forced to vote for it with the Democrats. In that case, only 4 Republicans will be needed to pass it. At this point, that looks like it's in the bag. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have all said they are yes votes.

Any number of Republicans may provide that 4th vote but by the end of the week Politico was reporting that Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who is retiring next year, i willing o cast the deciding vote if he can't get Trump to back down and withdraw the phony state of emergency. Burgess Everett reported on Thursday that he's one of the senior Republicans offering Trump a choice: Withdraw your national emergency declaration at the border or face a potential rebellion from the GOP.
In a much-anticipated floor speech, the retiring senator declined to state whether he will become the deciding vote to block the president’s maneuver. But he signaled broad opposition to the emergency declaration and sought to convince Trump that he has other ways to collect $5.7 billion for the border wall-- the precise amount of money he demanded during the government shutdown fight.

“He’s got sufficient funding without a national emergency, he can build a wall and avoid a dangerous precedent,” Alexander told reporters afterward, referring to billions from a drug forfeiture fund and anti-drug smuggling money at the Defense Department. “That would change the voting situation if he we were to agree to do that.”

...[Trump] told Sean Hannity that Republicans who oppose him “put themselves at great jeopardy” and said it’s “very dangerous” to vote against border security. Some GOP senators shrugged off that sentiment.

“I always do what I think is the right thing to do,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who is undecided. “As long as I’m satisfied with myself, that’s the person I’m going to satisfy.”

Republicans spent all week debating how to deal with the political headache of seeing a president from their party use some of the same unilateral tactics they panned under President Barack Obama.


After introducing her own resolution of disapproval directly on the Senate floor Thursday, Collins said her “Republican colleagues are very uneasy about the precedent.”

“I don’t think emergencies are a good way to run the government. And the president needs permission from Congress to get money,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Thursday. Despite those words, he hasn’t made a “final decision” on his vote.

...Despite his clear opposition to Trump’s national emergency declaration, Alexander deemed the looming vote on disapproval a hypothetical, since Trump could withdraw it or the House-passed resolution could be amended. Under current law, the House measure will come up by mid-March, and Alexander left little doubt that he’s just one of a large bloc of Republicans who could defy the president.

Trump’s national emergency declaration for border wall funding is “unnecessary, unwise and inconsistent with the Constitution,” Alexander told reporters. “And many Republican senators who can speak for themselves share that view.”

“We’ve never had a case where the president has asked for money, been refused the money by Congress, then used the national emergency powers to spend it anyway,” he added. “To me that’s a dangerous precedent.”

Collusion by Nancy Ohanian

Labels: , , , ,

1 Comments:

At 7:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not that this is anything new, but everyone who votes to allow this clear arrogation of constitutional power is both violating their oaths to 'protect and defend' the constitution (which is crystal clear about the separation of powers and shit), but is also voting to make themselves and their "legislative" body irrelevant.

A follow up (assuming failure) resolution to disband congress and save the taxpayers a shitload of money would not be out of line.

say... would that be enough money to build trump's berlin wall? maybe add a machine gun nest every 300 yards? wouldn't a 3000-mile mine field make sense?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home