Only a few hours later Kill Charlie KirkPresident Donald Trump accused the “radical left” and said the crackdown is coming – although the killer’s identity and motivation are still unknown.
Trump in an Oval Office statement Wednesday explain His administration will “find people who contribute to this atrocities and other political violence, including organizations that fund and support it.”
What exactly he might mean and what he looks like in practice remains to be seen. But there are a few Famous Right wing Commentators called for action against progressive donors and nonprofits (zero evidence) they asserted, which in some ways was responsible for the killing. Others Asked to take action Oppose the Democrats themselves.
This is a dangerous moment, similar to many other countries in the past (including the United States). Like Kirk’s killing, a horrible act of violence can serve as a justification for the government’s repressive movement against political opposition, and political opponents have nothing to do with the killing.
A dark way like this often encounters situations when the ruling party reaches its peak pass “Emergency Law” Stripping Civil liberties protect or grant new legal powers to the government to follow its perceived internal enemies.
But, in the United States, there are huge obstacles to something similar: Senate litigation.
Flibuster (It’s a procedural move that lacks support from 60 senators, meaning Trump and the Republican 53-seat Senate majority cannot pass any law they want to the law. They must comply with complexity and restrictiveness Budget settlement process (Free from the FR apprentice), otherwise they need to win some Senate Democrats.
So as long as the Senate litigation persists, any Trump’s crackdown campaign must rely on existing laws or administrations, or obtain a democratic vote.
That’s why it’s ironic that Democrats were in the days before the shooting Excite yourself For confrontations that may very likely lead to the demise of fillibuster.
Flibuster has been a punch-punch bag for progressives for years, and they blame it on limiting what the Democratic president can do. Even now, many people are happy to see it go.
However, Trump’s attempt to centralize power – a conversation about taking action against progressive donors and groups shows why filibusters are actually valuable in times of threat. If you do this, there is still one protection measure missing.
Prolonged government shutdowns are likely to spur Republicans to end their words and deeds
Before Kirk’s killing, the hottest topic among Democrats was whether the party’s senators should delay the new funding bill and force the federal government to shut down until their requests were met.
Back in March, the last time the government funding expired, Senate Democrats decided not to force closures through Filibuster and the party’s bases. It’s suffocating. Now, the new deadline for September 30 is approaching and Democrats are debating what they should do this time.
The deep concern about Trump’s authoritarianism and the belief that Democrats need to do more to fight it has inspired people’s voices. My former colleague demands new restrictions on Trump’s authoritarian moves – if these requirements are not met, force the government to close – My former colleague is a way Ezra Klein believes.
However, it is important to try to move forward a few steps in the way of shutting down the work and fighting.
Assuming that Senate Democrats did indeed shut down the administration through a lawsuit suggests that Trump and Senate Republicans consider it unacceptable. We assume it is a big assumption, but let’s move on – Democrats are actually shutting down, sticking to their demands, and determined to shut down the government indefinitely.
What will happen next? I did not see a reasonable world that outweighed the gentle cave. Instead, what will happen is that Senate Republicans will face increasing pressure – from Trump and his base, through changing rules, ending lawsuits and giving themselves the power to make new laws.
One might argue that Senate Republicans always get stuck in Trump when they want something. But this is not true at all. Trump has Want fillibuster disappeared Senate Republicans have rejected his requests since the first year of his first year, rather than keeping his requests. That was eight years of habit not touching on this particular topic.
60 votes to propose a bill, 51 votes to change the rules?
The Senate process is an interesting thing. To overcome a typical bill, 60 votes are required. But most of the 51 senators (or 50 plus vice presidents) can get rid of this requirement by changing regulations through rules. This is called “nuclear selection.”
As can be seen from the name, nuclear selection is considered extreme and there are long-standing norms against random invocations of it. Nevertheless, in recent years, Senate leaders from both sides have used it from time to time to change the rules for confirming nominees. In fact, the Republicans deployed One week. But for legislation, the 60 vote threshold that currently overcomes fillibuster has remained unchanged since 1975.
But if Senate Republicans are convinced that Democrats are abused by litigation, if Democrats think that Democrats have completely meaninglessly forced a shutdown without purpose, they will be provoked to end it if they face enough pressure from the right.
That is: Klein’s closing strategy aims to resist Trump’s authoritarianism, which is likely to lead to Trump’s acquisition More strength.
Let me clarify this dynamic again. Currently, Senate Republicans do not want to eliminate this remark. They’re happy to surround it (this is a convenient excuse to tell Trump no, they can’t do it). But if Senate Democrats use this method somehow, they think it is completely unacceptable—for example, if they think it is unrealistic, shut down the government indefinitely—if they feel it is unrealistic, they will feel enough heat from the rights and they will change their minds.
Klein debate Senate Democrats offering votes to the current state of government funding bill would be “co-conspiracy.”
But if you’re very worried about the authoritarian threat posed by Trump, why would you encounter a confrontation that would most likely end in the last major limit on the removal of its power?
Progressives should think more about what might happen if Trump gets out of the lawsuit
What is the world without the word fil?
Many progressives have said it Looks pretty goodin fact – better for the state and for the Democrats and for the progressive agenda.
But they rely on outdated arguments honed in a very different political world and fail to update their ideas about the threat Trump now posed.
Gradually anti-Felliberg sentiment started in 2009. Connell (Klein) and others Propose a case Without it, the Senate would be better. The direct background is that President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congressional majority have been hampered by passing their preference agenda. When Joe Biden took office in 2021, the debate roared under similar circumstances.
The higher-minded argument is that it is simply not good for democratic responsibility. This argument holds that the president and the majority of Congress should be able to really pass everything they want to pass. Most people should issue their agenda, and then voters decide whether they like it or not and make a judgment in the next election.
Combining this noble argument is a selfish argument. Progressives believe that ending boring people is more helpful to their ideology and policy goals than the conservatives. After all, the argument has been made that all conservatives want to do taxes with the government. Progressives actually want to do something to help people, and Flibuster stops them.
The opening of the second Trump administration for several months should eliminate this dangerous complacency and, in particular, the illusion of any right not wanting to “do anything” with the administration.
Trump’s appointees show great imaginations in how to threaten and coerce federal power weapons to weaponize various social actors. But if they have greater power to rewrite the law, they can do more.
Filibuster effectively limits the possible field of view. For this reason, Trump’s retribution agenda is centered on the power of the executive branch. exist Project 2025 There are other efforts, and right-wing thinkers have spent years dreaming of ways to develop an agenda through the administration, because passing new (non-conciliation) laws seems so incredible.
If all of a sudden, that remark disappears, then Trump will likely pass any new law he wants (as long as his swing votes bullying the Republican Party continue to move forward), possibly changing the possible horizon.
Here is a concrete example: in March, Trump release Execute an order Various needs Change their voting systems in the states. But the order is Suspiciously legalits influence is not yet known. New laws for Trump to reshape the election will be a stronger and more effective way.
This constitutes a clear flaw in the above-mentioned high-thinking arguments on filibuster reform. The argument holds that most people should enact their agenda in the minority and should depend on voters’ judgment on that agenda in the next election.
But what if the president doesn’t have a lawsuit and he passes new laws to interfere with the next election? What if the president seized the moment of emergency laws that violated his political opponents after a national tragedy?
In so many times Guardrail To stop Trump from bending and rupture, Democrats risk gambling one of the biggest remaining figures.
