Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the 107th Congress, there was a 50-50 tie between the 2 parties, with Cheney being the tie breaker. The Democrats said this was unfair and demanded even control. The Republicans agreed to the terms, until Jefford switched from a Republican to an Independent that caucused with the Democrats giving the Democrats the slight edge.
If there is a 50-50 tie in the US Senate after the 2014 election, should we follow the Democrat Party principle of 2001 and have both parties share control of the US Senate equally, instead of having the Democrats retain full control with Biden breaking the ties for leadership decisions?
I say yes, it may even bring out some bipartisanship - I like the Democrat Party plan of 2001 that the Republicans agreed to, instead of having Cheney break the ties for all leadership votes.
I'm sorry, but Harry Reid pulled the nuclear option. There is no bipartisanship left in the DNC.
I'd say they'd be lucky to retain 50% of the Senate. There are 36 seats up for a shuffle, and I won't be surprised to see another 2010 style push back.
I'm sorry, but Harry Reid pulled the nuclear option. There is no bipartisanship left in the DNC.
I'd say they'd be lucky to retain 50% of the Senate. There are 36 seats up for a shuffle, and I won't be surprised to see another 2010 style push back.
50-50 means the Vice President gives that party a 51-50 majority, since the Vice President "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."
50-50 means the Vice President gives that party a 51-50 majority, since the Vice President "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."
The poll is constitutionally ignorant.
I think you are recent events ignorant.
As I pointed out. There was a 50-50 tie recently with Cheney as the tie breaker. The Democrats demanded that they get some control of the Senate leadership and the Republicans gave in until Jeffords switched sides.
Since the Democrats set this precedent, should they now return the favor to the Republicans?
In the 107th Congress, there was a 50-50 tie between the 2 parties, with Cheney being the tie breaker. The Democrats said this was unfair and demanded even control. The Republicans agreed to the terms, until Jefford switched from a Republican to an Independent that caucused with the Democrats giving the Democrats the slight edge.
If there is a 50-50 tie in the US Senate after the 2014 election, should we follow the Democrat Party principle of 2001 and have both parties share control of the US Senate equally, instead of having the Democrats retain full control with Biden breaking the ties for leadership decisions?
I say yes, it may even bring out some bipartisanship - I like the Democrat Party plan of 2001 that the Republicans agreed to, instead of having Cheney break the ties for all leadership votes.
If there is a 50/50 tie the VP will hold the tie breaking vote. Do you not understand how congress works?
As I pointed out. There was a 50-50 tie recently with Cheney as the tie breaker. The Democrats demanded that they get some control of the Senate leadership and the Republicans gave in until Jeffords switched sides.
Since the Democrats set this precedent, should they now return the favor to the Republicans?
As I pointed out. There was a 50-50 tie recently with Cheney as the tie breaker. The Democrats demanded that they get some control of the Senate leadership and the Republicans gave in until Jeffords switched sides.
Since the Democrats set this precedent, should they now return the favor to the Republicans?
Recent events of GOP fecklessness do not overturn the Constitution, which the Democrats would be more than happy and fearless to trumpet, knowing they have a complicit media on their side.
Recent events of GOP fecklessness do not overturn the Constitution, which the Democrats would be more than happy and fearless to trumpet, knowing they have a complicit media on their side.
So you are saying the Democrats were over turning the constitution in 2001? Should those Democrats (many still in the US Senate) be arrested for over turning the US constitution back then?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
