362
Mike Lee Tries to Sneak Public Land Sale Back Into 'Big, Ugly Bill' Ahead of Senate Vote
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
362 points (99.5% liked)
politics
24407 readers
3086 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
there's a crazy ass loophole where once a year they can pass one bill (with anything in it) with a smaller majority as long as they say it's for budget reconciliation purposes.
both sides have been shoehorning things into this process that don't belong for years, and now that the rails are off the current admin is really making hay.
That's a wonderfully evocative mixed metaphor 😄
I agree that the process of shoehorning everything into one big bill is crazy, but it wouldn't be as big of an issue without the filibuster. Then it would be possible to pass non-budget bills with a simple majority (50 votes) instead of needing a supermajority (60 votes) for everything.
And the filibuster wouldn't be as big of a deal if they were required to actually filibuster. For a while now, they've only needed to send an email stating that they were filibustering. This would also probably force some senators who have no business making laws that they won't be alive to see the consequences of to retire. For example, there's no way that McConnell has been physically capable of a filibuster for the last decade at least - he should be enjoying retirement (as much as one can wish him well), not enjoying causing harm to current and future generations.
Absolutely. I want to keep the filibuster, but I want them to have to stand and talk the whole time. Cloture could still stop it. It would show who is really committed to a cause and who is just doing whatever is politically expedient.
Indeed! Would be necessary to ensure that it walks a line that is not ableist, while still preventing obstructionists from having undemocratic power to kill legislation with a "nuh-uh".
That's a very good point that I hadn't considered. I'm not sure what to do to provide necessary modifications fairly without favoring folks who are 9000 years old due to being cursed by a witch, but I'm sure someone out there has a good idea.