McConnell Blocks Vote on $2k Stimulus Payments

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 02:57:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Mitch McConnell does it again. He's blocked the vote on the increased stimulus payments sought by most of Congress and Donald Trump.

McConnell brought the chamber back this week with one major goal: overriding Trump’s veto of the annual National Defense Authorization Act. He has not yet committed to bringing the $2,000 payment bill up for a vote, and it is unclear now how one would take shape.

Trump is also trying to get the Senate to pass something that will investigate (non-existent) election fraud in the presidential election.

Will Bernie Sanders follow through with a filibuster to block the overide vote on Trump's veto of the Defense Authorization bill? [More...]

Then, Sanders followed through on his threat to delay consideration of the veto override by objecting to a Wednesday vote.

As the Senate needs unanimous support to move quickly on most issues, any one senator can grind activity to a halt if they choose.

I'm not sure that's a great move by Bernie. It will seem to the public like the Dems blocked the vote, not McConnell. I think the Dems should keep the focus on Republicans who left their money hanging out to dry.

< Ghislaine Maxwell Denied Bail Again | Wednesday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McConnell Blocks Vote on $2k Stimulus Payments | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It is a Good Move by Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by msaroff on Wed Dec 30, 2020 at 10:11:00 AM EST

Bernie is not filibustering the aid package, he is filibustering the override of the Defense Authorization bill, which has the following effects:

Forces Perdue and Loeffler to stay in DC, and not campaign. (By withholding consent, it keeps the Senate in session until Jan 1)

Continues the focus on the $2000 payments.

It's a win-win, at least until the Washington Generals^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h Senate Democrats cave.

Filibuster (none / 0) (#1)
by jmacWA on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 03:00:08 PM EST

I have no problem with Bernie putting some additional pressure on McConnell, whether or not it would do any good remains to be seen.

They say Mitch (none / 0) (#2)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 04:19:58 PM EST

just introduced a bill that would

Send out $2000 checks

and

Repeal 230

AND

Create a commission to investigate election fraud.

Talk about poison pills That's a poison enema.

This sounds like the (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by MO Blue on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 04:45:24 PM EST

tactic I was pretty sure he would pursue. I wouldn't be surprised if giving companies liability protection was also included.


: Bernie is about to discuss this (none / 0) (#4)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 04:48:04 PM EST

On CNN

What's wrong with a commission (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 05:38:15 PM EST

to investigate election fraud? It will end up like the first commission orange doofus put together. They found nothing.


And do they (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 06:03:06 PM EST

really know what they are going to get with 230? Things are going to get much worse for conservatives with 230 gone since from my experience at least conservatives are the ones that pass all the lies on social media. Trump obviously is worried about this for himself and doesn't want all his dirt all over social media.


It could be used (none / 0) (#8)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 06:19:56 PM EST

as an excuse to pass very repressive voting laws around everything from IDs to anything else they can think of.

A Republican "Commission to Investigate Voter Fraud" would not end well for voting rights.

On 230

Two myths about Section 230 have developed in recent years and clouded today's debates about the law. One says that Section 230 somehow requires online services to be "neutral public forums": that if they show "bias" in their decisions about what material to show or hide from users, they lose their liability shield under Section 230 (this myth drives today's deeply misguided "platform vs. publisher" rhetoric).
The other myth is that if Section 230 were repealed, online platforms would suddenly turn into "neutral" forums, doing nothing to remove or promote certain users' speech. Both myths ignore that Section 230 isn't what protects platforms' right to reflect any editorial viewpoint in how it moderates users' speech--the First Amendment to the Constitution is.
The First Amendment protects platforms' right to moderate and curate users' speech to reflect their views, and Section 230 additionally protects them from certain types of liability for their users' speech. It's not one or the other; it's both.

Honestly (none / 0) (#11)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 07:04:41 PM EST

we have ID voting here in GA. The problem is largely not that you have to have an ID but the hoops you have to jump through to get an ID. A simple repeal of the Real ID Act would undercut anything the GOP might attempt to do about imaginary voter fraud.


: USA (none / 0) (#15)%%nor