Schumer’s Vote for a CR
J.P. McJefferson’s comment on an earlier post Senate passed a stopgap measure from the House of Representatives to which Schumer voted to move the measure forward. Joining him were Democratic senators John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Gary Peters of Michigan, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Independent Angus King of Maine. Many Democrats were angry at Schumer supporting the bill.
As I pointed out this was the best of the worst (choices) that could be made. J.P. McJefferson had much to add to the CR or continuing resolution.
The alternative would have allowed Trump and Republicans to decide if there was a government shutdown and what president Trump would do.
~~~~~
J.P. McJefferson:
This is probably the most objective summary of what went down on the “non-clean” CR.
Bill, is this your comment at the beginning? “Do I like what happened? No. Best of the worst is all I can say about it.” That’s my position also.
But I’m a little confused that more Democrats didn’t appreciate the “Hobson’s choice” presented to Schumer. Nancy Pelosi, for example, an expert political strategist. It seems that the massive anger and attacks on Schumer are shortsighted.
Two major points that are seemingly getting very little analysis or Democratic discussion or media attention.
DISRUPTION TO THE JUDICIARY
The Federal Bar Association has previously expressed deep concern about a government shutdown & respect for the rule of law. Angry Democrats & the media are not reporting on the devastating impacts on the judicial system & 119 lawsuits against the “Administration” if a shutdown had been permitted. Legal sources indicate that one of the worst impacts could have been its effect on the judicial & legal system.
They indicate that unlike executive branch agencies, the federal courts can continue operations for about two weeks following a government shutdown. Civil cases, on the other hand, often experience significant delays. Imposing a moratorium on civil trials has been suggested as a money-saving measure in a prior shutdown. Trump would have certainly supported, and SCOTUS probably would have called for a moratorium on all civil cases. That action alone could have immediately stopped and delayed 119 lawsuits against the “Administration” and the new ones being added daily.
In cases where an attorney from an Executive Branch agency is not working because of the shutdown, hearing and filing dates may be rescheduled. Trump could have said there are no funds for the government attorney and legal proceedings would be delayed.
Research says that for the federal courts, a funding lapse would be uncharted territory. The Supreme Court and each circuit court, district court, and bankruptcy court would have a lot of discretion to determine which employees count as “essential” or “non-essential.” So, the courts could end up acting very differently, and the ones that like Trump could really mess things up.
Impacts of a government shutdown on the judicial system.
NATIONAL EMERGENCY
Do people think that if Democrats had forced a government shutdown, Trump wouldn’t have been been on TV blaming them, & declaring a National Emergency for financial instability with a signature on an executive order, & taken full control of government.
“The Brennan Center’s original research cataloged 136 statutory authorities that become available to the president when he declares a national emergency… Given how broad these powers are, it is critical to have adequate safeguards in place to prevent abuse.
“The National Emergencies Act, in its current form, lacks those protections. It allows the president to declare emergencies with nothing more than a signature on an executive order, and presidents can renew those emergencies every year ad infinitum. Congress can vote to end an emergency with a simple majority of both houses of Congress now controlled by the GOP.
“…the president has significant discretion to declare a national emergency; there are no statutory limitations, beyond the word “emergency” itself, on what type of event qualifies. The law provides that a national emergency will terminate after a year unless the president renews it, but such renewals happen routinely… [In Trump I] Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to secure funding that Congress had expressly denied for the construction of a wall along the southern border. Congress voted to end that emergency, but the president vetoed the bill, and so the emergency remains in place.”
“Emergency powers cover almost every imaginable subject area, including the military, land use, public health, trade, federal pay schedules, agriculture, transportation, communications, and criminal law.”
If you’re interested the Brennan Center has prepared extensive research and analysis.
- Letters from an American March 14, 2025, Heather Cox Richardson
Good analysis that seems to further support my hypothesis that the cloture vote was not really greatly disputed in the Senate Democratic caucus. Durbin and Schatz are, for me, the “tells” that this was designed to allow max “defiance” for the majority of the caucus without running these very big and very real risks of the shutdown. Pelosi and AOC are expressing outrage, but Sen. Baldwin isn’t. Multiply that by lots of Senators that voted for a filibuster here. I don’t think that Republicans were in as much control of this process as implied here though, or maybe better said that tiny, tiny concessions in the Senate would have either failed in the House or almost certainly required House Democrats to publicly approve of it. Max resistance demonstration in Congress without risking shutdown.
Symbolism is important in politics and the symbolism here for Democrats was ineffectual weakness. The party’s approval ratings are in the toilet. Maybe this is all to the good and Carville’s play dead strategy will prevail but it seems clear that the dismantling of the federal government is proceeding apace. The point about the potential shut down of the courts on civil matters is a good one although I’d guess they’d be held open by Roberts on constitutional issues. A fraught time. No question about that. Doubtful the Democrats would have been blamed for the shutdown. Polls indicated the contrary and it was clear the Republican House had simply taken its ball and gone home. On balance I wish they had rejected the CR.
@Jack,
“On balance I wish they had rejected the CR.”
Me too. Since the DOGE/Trump plan is to shrink government to the size of a shut-down, the Democrats should have forced them to play their hand now. Shock and awe would have gotten the electorate’s attention, and as you say, Republicans would be blamed.
By letting the GOP have their way, they’ve only enabled the gradual hollowing out of government that is Project 2025. Sad.
Not even gradual. The process is defined now: House Republicans pass whatever the fuck they want, calling it a “Continuing Resolution,” and Chuck Schumer kisses DJT’s ass continuously . . .
If you really think either of those two options would happen, then you have no negotiating point and whether or not they happen is inconsequential. Mutually-Assured Destruction only works if the opponent thinks you might drop a bomb on them.
If you really think either of those two options (or something worse) would happen, then you have two choices: give them everything they want, at–which point people think you are not negotiating with insane terrorists, because you wouldn’t do that, so you must think they are sane–or call their “bluff” and let the people figure out that you aren’t wrong that they are insane.
You can say–not incorrectly–that such actions will cause near-term harm and probably cost lives. If you’re Neville Chamberlain, and you know it will take you at least another year to get your Armed Forces into good enough shape to have a chance against the Axis (or even Germany alone), then maybe it’s worth the Sudetenland now so you don’t have to fight until Poland is at risk. (If you’re France, who lost that entire generation of potential soldiers, you’re fucked and idiot economists will go around talking about how “unfair” the Treaty of Versailles was while making jokes with a punchline like “Germans like to march in the shade.”)
Chuck “I kiss Jamie Dimon’s ass for a living” Schumer doesn’t think he will have a better Army next year. He just keeps talking about how the post-Trump Republican Party will be collegial souls he can fuck around in the gym with. Clearly, senility can appear in your 75th year, if not well before.
He was the wrong choice with the election not settled in 2016. He has been the wrong choice for the past eight years. Now he’s doing actual damage to his constituents, his Party, and all Americans. And all the bullshitting about “how it could get worse” while taking actions that do nothing to stop that possibility is a strategy that would be hilarious if we weren’t getting so fucked by it.
@Ken,
D’accord.
The Democrats desperately need new, younger, less conservative leadership. What’s the point in having power if you don’t want to use it?
Ken:
If you are looking for a scapegoat, I altered your text.
Do we believe the rest of the Repubs will allow Trump and Musk to continue? I believe at some point they will move away from Trump. And then what? Trump is not the tough guy here. Who is it? Will the military follow Trump? Unlikely, otherwise they would have.
We are all going to get screwed in the short term.
People are already pissed off with their representatives. It is telling in the Town Halls. They were pretty stupid to think Trump represents them. It would not surprise me if someone gets shot.
There is and was no negotiation. Just demands
DEMOCRAT SHUTDOWN SUPPORTERS
Thanks for the reposting of my original comment. Despite the incredibly hostile Democratic base response to Schumer, et. al’s. vote to support the CR and avert a government shutdown, I stand by my position and believe a few courageous Senate Democrats truly supported County Over Party. I have been a pragmatic Democrat my entire life, but I am now being called a Blue MAGA in some circles by people who have no idea who I am. I have responded, “Name calling, alternative facts, party over country. I’ve heard those arguments somewhere before.”
Democrats who supported shutting down the government (with no plan on how it would be reopened) should read, “How A Shutdown Could Empower Trump.” “…if you thought the second Trump administration has been chaotic so far: just wait until it’s put in charge of presiding over a shutdown.”
Republican insiders actually had a plan that was dependent on initiating a government shutdown to kick it off. In a lengthy essay, in 2023, a former Trump administration official — only identified pseudonymously, as “Lancelot A. Lamar” — discussed how to “transform shutdowns from the bureaucracy’s shield into the president’s sword.” tinyurl.com/3b3w3a5f
Now, as Trump would have explained to the American public, the Democratically initiated shutdown, “has left the country unmanageable” and therefore with the stroke of his Executive Order pen, he could have declared a National Emergency. During the 2019 shutdown when there were many more guardrails in place, a National Emergency was considered. Shutdown supporters should read:
“What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency:”
“It would be nice to think that America is protected from the worst excesses of Trump’s impulses by its democratic laws and institutions…
“Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency” — a decision that is entirely within his discretion — more than 100 special provisions become available to him… some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest. This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the country’s best interest when using them… The state of emergency expires after a year unless the president renews it…”
“This legal regime for emergencies — ambiguous constitutional limits combined with a rich well of statutory emergency powers — would seem to provide the ingredients for a dangerous encroachment on American civil liberties.
“Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans, each emergency power “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”
How about an Internet “kill switch”? “the size and composition of the armed forces”; “shut down or take control of ‘any facility or station for wire communication’”; “disrupt political discourse and hinder effective, organized political opposition”; “freezing assets and blocking financial transactions in which any foreign nation or foreign national has an interest”; targeted designations of persons as security threats with no notice and no hearing; and deploying troops inside the country.
The article includes an imagined scenario where Trump proclaimed a fake threat of war, invokes Section 706 of the Communications Act to assume government control over internet traffic inside the United States, in order to prevent the spread of disinformation and propaganda.
Democrats in the House had an easy decision to vote “No” on a terrible bill that was passed by a House GOP majority. In the Senate, the decision was not easy; it was a choice between a terrible bill and a government shutdown. I blame the media and Democratic leadership for not adequately explaining to the public the catastrophic ramifications of a government shutdown under Trump’s already out-of-control leadership. There is extensive research on this which was not reported. It was simply characterized as Democrats, “throwing in the towel,” “waiving the white flag,” “caving,” and the like.
@McJ,
If Trump can declare a national emergency because Republicans shut down the government, here’s *nothing* preventing Trump from declaring a national emergency on any pretense. Nothing. And there’s nothing to prevent him from blaming the Democrats when he does. Nothing. All the CR vote did was postpone it. If the Democrats don’t support the GOP bill to raise the debt ceiling, he could do it then.
Appeasement won’t work.
Basically agree, but postponing it may prove to be important as public outrage and court rulings are showing results. The Trump-Musk-MAGA era could implode on its own with its self-destructing actions growing more extreme daily.
Bill or Joel, I just posted an extensive comment that did not show up.
@McJ,
It’s up now. Probably ended up in trash because of length. You might consider editing before posting.