The Parliamentarian's rulings are advisory in nature. The Senate - with just a majority - can vote to ignore rulings by the Parliamentarian (nuclear option) and create a new precedent. For example, if Democrats could get 50 votes plus the VP, they could create a way to address immigration reform through reconciliation. It wouldn't be a rules change (that can only happen with 67 votes), but that would change the precedents of the Senate. If you want to see more about precedents in the Senate, Google 'Riddick Senate procedure'
I read somewhere that the parliamentarian's ruling (i.e. opinion) is important but not obligatory for passage of legislation. Is that so?
The Parliamentarian's rulings are advisory in nature. The Senate - with just a majority - can vote to ignore rulings by the Parliamentarian (nuclear option) and create a new precedent. For example, if Democrats could get 50 votes plus the VP, they could create a way to address immigration reform through reconciliation. It wouldn't be a rules change (that can only happen with 67 votes), but that would change the precedents of the Senate. If you want to see more about precedents in the Senate, Google 'Riddick Senate procedure'
Thanks. (My guess is that any Senate rules change would be a mammoth long shot.)
The Portman and Support points. Got me! I read you too much or you trained me well😁
Cramer (R-NC) should read Cramer (R-ND)
That's a dumb mistake. Thanks.
I only caught it because i live in NC.