Don’t believe everything you read in the media.
Amazing contrast between the people who claim removing NFA taxes is somehow actually a big loss for gun rights and the gun control groups who claim the streets will run red with the blood of people murdered with the suppressors and SBRs that will now be sold in vending machines
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) July 4, 2025
I expected the Republicans to cuck out. I did not expect Vance to be leading it.
How, exactly, was Vance leading the ‘cuck out’ you claim happened?
President of the Senate can tell Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice. He decided to rubberstamp her instead so Murkowski didn’t have to support the provisions.
“President of the Senate can tell Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice.”
The President of the Senate is the vice president, VP Vance in this case. He is neither a senator or a congressman. This was a purely senate thing to be done by elected senators. The only role Vance could have was to cast a tie breaker vote if it was needed. There was only one case where its a possibility that Vance can step in and overrule or dismiss the Parliamentarian and that is for gross misconduct or dereliction of duties – he can’t do that because he disagrees with her or because she gets it wrong and that’s what you wanted him to do. This did not apply here … its not gross misconduct or dereliction of duties for the Parliamentarian to carry out their duty of conducting decision making in compliance with the Byrd Rule, right or wrong. I’m not defending her or Vance, its just the reality and you seem to not realize it.
I think the Parliamentarian was wrong in a lot of the stuff she got removed, I think she was a woke left wing idiot, but that doesn’t mean in reality she was not carrying out her duties even if she was wrong and biased.
But its different for the senate majority leader. They can overrule the Parliamentarian for a wrong decision. And telling the Parliamentarian to pound sand was up to the senate majority leader which is John Thune. But there are times you do not want to do that, and this was one of those times. Vance didn’t have that authority as the Vice President or as President of the Senate under the circumstances.
Actually Thune was going to overrule the Parliamentarian, until reality hit…
Thune would not move to overrule the parliamentarian because she had advised (and correctly – she basically inadvertently gave away a tactic of the democrats) that including key provisions in the bill would expose it to a fatal Democratic filibuster (if the democrats wanted to do that, and you know they would too, its exactly where they had been trying to push the bill to kill it entirely). That was something the republicans could not win (and the democrats knew it – they had the votes at the time with some RINO’s and some republicans that were not happy they way some things were worded and didn’t mind drawing this out to get their wording – and 100% of the democrats were going to vote against it). Even though the republicans have majority control of the senate they did not have the seats for a 60 vote supermajority vote that would be needed to overcome a democrat filibuster and the bill would have died.
1) Vance as president of the Senate 100% CAN overrule the parliamentarian.
2) The 60 vote filibuster rule does not apply to budget reconciliation votes, which this was, regardless of what was or wasn’t in the bill. The Parliamentarian’s role is to determine what is or isn’t applicable to budget reconciliation, but that determination is not binding on the Majority leader, nor the President of the Senate if they so choose.
Regardless of what ended up in the bill, it was still going to be a 50+1 majority vote. The Parliamentarian’s opinion, if overruled, would have no effect on the vote, and it would still only be a 50+1 vote.
My other post that went to moderation explains this also and it was kinda messed up the way I worded it, so I’ll do a brief thing here another way…..
If the Parliamentarian had committed gross misconduct or dereliction of duties, then VP Vance who is the President of the Senate can tell the “Parliamentarian to pound sand” or dismiss her. But, there was actually none of that here as the Parliamentarian did carry out her duties without gross misconduct or dereliction, even if she was right or wrong in her decisions, so Vance could not do that. His only role here was to cast a tie break vote if needed. The Parliamentarian is a woke left wing idiot, yes, was she somewhat biased, yes, …. but was she committing gross misconduct or dereliction of duties, no (which is kinda refreshing considering shes a left-winger un-elected bureaucrat, they usually don’t mind throwing in some gross misconduct or dereliction of duties). To be complete tho, she should have been replaced before this thing started, and they didn’t replace her and could have.
But, the job of telling the “Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice” or dismiss her because the republicans do not agree with her is that of the Senate majority leader John Thune, not Vance.
Thune was going to tell the “Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice” until she advised about some of the policy changes, then reality set in…save the bill or lose it completely…and here’s why Thune did not tell the “Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice” or dismiss her…
The budget reconciliation process allows the majority party to circumvent the 60-vote threshold and pass legislation with a simple majority, but only if the bill alters spending or revenue levels. That means policy changes can’t be included – there were policy changes included in other things. These policy changes were ‘extraneous’ and tangentially related to spending or revenue levels and under strict adherence to Byrd can’t be included. One of the tactics the democrats used was demanding strict adherence, either side can do that and its a legitimate demand that has to be followed. If Thune had told the “Parliamentarian to pound sand” and overruled her or dismissed her, those policy changes tangentially related to spending or revenue levels would have triggered a fatal Democrat filibuster and the bill would have died.
The Byrd rule doesn’t allow ‘extraneous’ stuff if the Byrd rule is strictly applied. The creator of the rule never really intended it to be so strictly applied, he knew that sometimes things can not be directly related but still have an effect. So in some cases ‘extraneous’ can be included if Byrd is not strictly applied if what-ever is tangentially related to tax or budget – it was the accepted and legitimate and ‘traditional’ norm. That’s what the HPA & SHORT are and were the way they were written, and those other policy changes as well, ‘extraneous’ tangentially related to budget and tax.
So there is more to this to consider than the simplistic view of “telling the “Parliamentarian to pound sand” or dismissing them because we don’t agree with them or don’t like them. The ‘reconciliation bill’ process is not this simple linear one dimensional thing people thing it is, its very fragile and has lots of moving parts.
It was a democrat plan to try to force this into a fatal democrat filibuster, but overruling the Parliamentarian or dismissing her would have had the same effect by causing a a fatal democrat filibuster – the republicans would have lost that and that’s a fact and the bill would have died. If the bill were to have died, in effect the democrats would have successfully imposed an almost $5 Trillion tax increase on the American public.
But there’s also another problem with telling the “Parliamentarian to pound sand” or dismissing them in a reconciliation – its also a back door end run around the filibuster and lets the majority party in the senate pass what ever they want with a simple majority. If that precedent is set it means the democrats could do the same thing in the future then the republicans can do it then the democrats could do it etc…. This is why its euphemistically called the ‘Nuclear Option’, it ‘nukes’ (i.e. destroys) the filibuster (elimination of the filibuster in reconciliation bill proceedings). It would allow each party’s senate majority justification to use it and there would be this never ending thing of each party simply ignoring the Byrd rule and passing a bill with a simple majority – and neither party really wants to do it no matter the threats to do so unless both sides agree to it in a majority vote – each side knows what it would lead to if only one side does it to set the precedent.
But, the Parliamentarian did allow some of those policy changes (portions of them re-written) that were ‘extraneous’ and tangentially related to spending or revenue levels if portions were re-written in a way that showed them closely tangentially related enough so strict application of Byrd could be applied. Of course the democrats ranted about it and the republicans smiled.
Clarification for : “Thune was going to tell the “Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice” …”
Thune had thought that an over-rule for an item was becoming necessary. It was a smaller policy change thing but obviously revenue related and even most of the democrats had not objected to it staying in but were up-set with how it was worded so objected to it and some of the republicans were also upset with how it was worded and objected to it. At that point, if an over-rule cause existed it would need a majority vote of the senate to sustain the over-rule. An ‘over-rule’ is not always a bad thing and can be done in certain circumstances IF it will not trigger a filibuster – and Thune though this was one of those circumstances so considered an over-rule. But then Thune was advised via the VP of the parliamentarian advice that at that point if Thune over-ruled it would trigger a fatal Democrat filibuster (republicans did not have the votes to defeat it) (and really, an over-rule for something that could be worded a little differently and pass muster it would have been a stupid thing to do at that point to over-rule and risk a filibuster) so Thune did not over-rule and the thing was re-worded a little and passed muster.
“President of the Senate can tell Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice.”
No.
In 1975 the Vice President overruled the parliamentarian. It led to a significant controversy, and prompted both parties to agree against allowing such a precedent to stand. And ever since then the VP as President of the Senate has not been able to overrule or dismiss the parliamentarian unless under certain circumstances for gross misconduct or dereliction of duties.
In 1975 we didn’t have the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule was enacted in 1985. In 1975 we did not the same senate processes enactments we have today.
What happened in 1975 is not a valid analogy to the ‘reconciliation bill’ processes we have today.
Not defending the parliamentarian or Vance here – but no matter how much the parliamentarian was wrong or what she ruled against or for, no matter how much Vance or any other republican or democrat may or may not have agreed with her, no matter what anyone from either party thought was happening or not happening, the reality is this: There was no actual gross misconduct or dereliction of duties on part of the parliamentarian and her job is to make decisions and advice as to what can or can not be in the bill in compliance with the Byrd rule and while doing that she can be right or wrong in her decisions and advice and its not actual gross misconduct or dereliction of duties because her duty is to make such decisions and advice and that’s what she did. So Vance could not “tell Parliamentarian to pound sand and reject her advice”.
The Byrd rule only applies in the senate. The rule is not self-enforcing – this is why there is a senate parliamentarian. A Senator must raise the point of order for something in the bill. The parliamentarian doesn’t just go through it saying this or that can or can not stay, like people think. Here is how the mechanics of it works in reality:
A senator raises a point of order, any senator can raise a point of order. The Senate’s Presiding Officer rules on the point of order and that ‘rule on the point of order’ is acknowledging it being raised and letting it be heard, a point of order can not be denied to be heard if its a valid point of order and by existence or non-existence of something in the bill all points of order raised on those are valid points of order so they are heard and can’t be denied to be heard. The parliamentarian uses the point of order to look at the point of order item and gives advice or decision on the item as to its inclusion in the bill under the Byrd rule constraints (either strict or not strict compliance – the democrats legitimately demanded strict compliance this time, this is decided prior the reconciliation process beginning) and gives that advice or decision to the The Senate’s Presiding Officer who passes that advice or decision on to the senate majority leader. The senate majority leader makes the actual decision based on the parliamentarians advice or decision passed on as to if something will stay or be removed from the bill.
Its true that as VP that Vance is The Senate’s Presiding Officer as President of the Senate, but he actually has no actual decision making authority as to what goes or stays in the bill or if the parliamentarian is right or wrong. This is all up to the senate, and Vance is not a senator – separation of powers rules still apply even if Vance is the senate president – its a violation of separation of powers for the VP as president of the senate to have decision making authority for what goes or stays in the bill – if it were that easy to get a Presidents bill through by just having his VP make the decision, well one can see where there is a constitutional separation of powers conflict with that. Basically, all The Senate’s Presiding Officer, the VP, does is pass on the parliamentarians advice or decision to the senate majority leader – this is because the senate parliamentarian can only address The Senate’s Presiding Officer with advice or decisions. The Senate’s Presiding Officer does not ‘rubber stamp’ the parliamentarians advice or decision, The Senate’s Presiding Officer is obligated to pass it on to the senate majority leader and that is not ‘rubber stamp’ the parliamentarians decisions or advice.
Basically, all Vance could do in this was rule on points of order and cast a tie breaker vote if it was needed, and of course carry out the other duties of being the president of the senate.
The BBB passed the house 218-214. This was an uphill slug-it-out battle all the way through…But….
With all the democrat opposition to the bill and the three dedicated republicans that were going to vote against it no matter and thus aid the democrats and some other republicans not happy about how some of the language was and were either undecided or going to vote against it because of that, the vote was not always going to be in favor of passing the bill.
So what changed to ensure the bill passed with a little bit of margin?
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries did an 8 hour filibuster against the bill, it was a delaying tactic conceived by him. It was this out of touch, out of ideas, out of tactics, and out of step with the country 8 hour, basically, rant filled with rhetoric – and even many Democrats weren’t impressed.
Because of Jeffries 8 hour filibuster, people reconsidered their vote and votes that were going to be a ‘no’ on the bill (thus not vote in favor of it passing) or not firmly decided were flipped to ‘yes’. And that’s how we ended up passing the bill with a little margin to spare. So in a weird way, the Democrats helped pass Trumps Big Beautiful Bill.
correction for: “The rule is not self-enforcing – this is why there is a senate parliamentarian.”
should have been…
The rule is not self-enforcing – this is why there is a senate parliamentarian involved in the ‘reconciliation bill’ process, they give advice or decision to the Senate’s Presiding Officer dealing with enforcement of the Byrd rule.
In 1975 the Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, over-ruled the parliamentarian in a matter involving the filibuster. But before that it was attempted in 1969 by Vice President Hubert Humphrey. It was the actual over-rule in 1975 that led to a significant controversy, and prompted both parties to agree against allowing such a precedent to stand. And ever since then the VP as President of the Senate has not been able to overrule or dismiss the parliamentarian unless under certain circumstances for gross misconduct or dereliction of duties.
United States 101 basics – simply put briefly:
The United States of America is a constitutional republic, with a representative democratic form of government which means we elect people to office to represent the people. The United States is not a ‘democracy’. The founders of our country knew the dangers of establishing the country as a ‘democracy’, the main one being that in a democracy majority rules meaning, basically, 51% of the people can decide what 49% of the people can or can not have.
To prevent our government from becoming the ‘majority’ and gathering adherents to support it as a majority making all the decision – thus to prevent a ‘ruling class’, the founders established three co-equal branches of government in our constitution – the executive, the legislative, the judicial – and separated their powers with each with their own powers and not to infringe upon or usurp the powers of the other branches and established checks-n-balances. But each branch can have a ‘representation for checks-n-balances’ in the other branches – for example – the President can nominate SCOTUS justices to the congress for consideration to serve as Justices at SCOTUS but congress must pass them to serve, the Vice President can serve as the President of the Senate, and the legislative branch can determine how far some presidential powers can go, and the judicial can determine if certain actions of any branch are constitutional or not. However, neither branch can violate the separation of powers or checks-n-balances.
Now, why this is important here:
In 1975 when Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, over-ruled the parliamentarian it significant controversy and issues, but at the basic core was the threat to separation of powers, just throwing the constitution away to get what they wanted. The Vice President is in the executive branch, his position as President of the Senate is serving to represent the executive branch and checks-n-balances and not as a member of the senate, and the VP can not violate separation of powers in that role. The congress (and thus the senate) is in the legislative branch, the ‘reconciliation bill’ process is a legislative power reserved only to the legislative branch. The VP, because they are actually in the executive branch, can not have a say in what does or does not go in a bill as this is a power reserved just to the legislative branch – the VP has one say and one say only and that is in their vote to break a tie if one happens and in doing so he is representing the executive branch.
If Vance had over-ruled the parliamentarian, it would have been a violation of separation of powers as doing so would have been in effect the executive branch deciding what would or would not be in the bill and thus usurping the power of the legislative branch.
Even though today the left wing and democrats have been trying hard to establish that ‘majority rules’ ruling-class these last four years and running roughshod over the constitution – When Vance did not try to over-rule the parliamentarian you actually saw the constitution and adherence to the constitution in action to help protect us from that ‘ruling class’ majority the left wing and democrats have been trying hard to establish because if that precedent had been set the democrats would have used it the next time they could to over-rule the parliamentarian to get what they wanted to help them maintain power to establish that ‘majority rules’ ruling-class.
In 1975 the democrats were different then and even they saw the dangers in letting a VP over-rule the parliamentarian, the democrats today see only the power they want. Thankfully, Vance did not over-rule the parliamentarian and adhere to his duty to not violate separation of powers and thankfully in 1975 both parties agreed against allowing such a precedent to stand.
Sure, we did not get our ‘Christmas list’ of stuff in the BBB, but also we didn’t violate the constitution with an over-rule and hand the democrats an over-rule precedent or situation they could exploit to make things worse.
Wrong. Only the Senate majority leader could have done that.
You’re just mad because you want to date me.
Oman Indian matrimony serves large diaspora populations.
I fully expect criminals to start using an SBR or a silencer in the commission of their crimes.
It has already been done in Newport News Virginia. And that guy was mentally ill. And his co workers knew it.
And most civilians, law abiding or criminal, don’t understand that you have to use special ammunition when shooting suppressed.
A criminal is going to be surprised just how loud their gun is. With a silencer.
Democrats are like the boy who cried wolf. People are slowly but surely catching on to the game.
The fact that we’re arguing over an obscure Senate officer that most people never heard of before this week should tell you how far down the rabbit hole our byzantine government has gone.