sarahbinder.bsky.social
Political scientist by day (and night). GWU and Brookings. Co-editor, https://goodauthority.org/
sarahbinder.weebly.com
111 posts
9,629 followers
105 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Technically, a single senator (from either party) could drag out for days process of getting to *final* vote on the actual House-passed “CR.” Today’s scheduled 1:15 pm vote is on whether to cut off debate on the motion to proceed to consider the “CR.” GOP need unanimous consent to speed things up.
comment in response to
post
or before late Thursday afternoon when senators start to get itchy to go home (and smell ✈️ fumes)
comment in response to
post
In theory, Democrats don’t need to object to a unanimous consent request to schedule a vote on the measure. No objection, no need for a cloture vote. But a GOP senator whose last name is also a first name might object…
comment in response to
post
Yes: Poverty rates are lower in more competitive districts (correlation, not causation!). But once you dig into the data, the two parties' average poverty rates are essentially the same-- though there's more variation across Dem-held districts than across GOP-held districts. Hope that clarifies!
comment in response to
post
Ha. Nope. Definitely not a meat mallet. It's "Split Rocker" :)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOqi...
www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/ho...
I'm also a fan of Puppy 🐶
www.guggenheim-bilbao.eus/en/the-colle...
comment in response to
post
Ahh. Thanks for clarifying. Hadn't seen that.
NIH noted in early January 2025 that limitations included in the FY24 appropriations for HHS/NIH remain in effect in the FY25 CR that expires March 14. grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...
comment in response to
post
This rider was enacted in *2017* (right before the start of fiscal year 2018). Trump didn’t try again, and then Congress the next year actually boosted NIH research funding.
comment in response to
post
Agree on impact re: democratic norms. And/but I think this episode reminds that "independence" -- even for the Fed, the most structurally independent agency-- is *conditional* on political support. POTUS attacks (& Fed's performance re: inflation) undermine that support; tough spot for Fed & leaders
comment in response to
post
If Trump fired Powell/Barr etc, with whom would SCOTUS side? Hard to say: Congress excluded "for cause" protection when it amended FedReserve Act in 1977 to require Senate confirmation for Fed chair/vc terms. Left open episodes like today's: Threat to fire creates unwelcome uncertainties for the Fed
comment in response to
post
Nor with you 🤓
comment in response to
post
Agree! Just think it's important to make plain these are essentially politically-shaped pathways & needn't foreclose technically possible alternatives. True, we expect the chair to follow parliamentarian's advice/precedent. But majorities *could* appeal to change course-- for better or for worse 🤓
comment in response to
post
TBC I've not seen reporting on what House parliamentarian might be advising party leaders wrt protracted spkrship election bleeding (figuratively!) into 1/6 EC vote count. But 2023 reminds: parliamentarians prefer not to rock the procedural boat. Potentially limits plasticity of leg institutions
comment in response to
post
Details & context (2023 v 2025) differ of course: Replacing McCarthy mid-year vs electing new speaker before House has adopted its rules. But predicament is the same: What is technically vs politically possible in light of (likely) small-c conservative advice from parliamentarian and MC deference.
comment in response to
post
We could be in a similar place to the all-consuming 🤓 2023 debate over powers of acting speaker McHenry after House booted Speaker McCarthy: Many congressional scholars interpreted McH's powers as far more expansive than did the House parliamentarian. GOP/Dem deference to H. parls ruled the day.
comment in response to
post
One question is whether electing speaker pro tem would be permissible in that context. Another is whether failure to elect speaker by 12:59 pm (ish) on Jan 6 would encourage a majority to vote to set new precedent on electing spkr. We might be in realm of what’s technically vs politically possible
comment in response to
post
No fixed term for VOA director in the statute. International Broadcasting Advisory Board (POTUS-apptd, Senate confirmed for 4-year terms) has formal authority to appoint/remove director. It's an old institution under new rules. So no strong precedent for this situation. Not sure what Mike A will do!
comment in response to
post
🍏🍎🍊[ ⬅️ debt limit 😅 ]