Humanities desk
< August 2	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 3

USA midterm elections 2022

Re: USA midterm elections 2022. Let's say that the Republicans gain control of one chamber; and Democrats, the other. So, we'd only have two possible scenarios. Scenario "A": Republicans win the House and Democrats win the Senate. Scenario "B": Democrats win the House and Republicans win the Senate. As a practical matter, is there any real distinction between Scenario "A" versus "B"? Or, in effect, is it essentially all really the same thing? If different, what would be the major differences ... from a practical (and legislative) perspective? A bill -- a proposed law -- needs both chambers to approve. So, at the most basic level, it seems like Scenario "A" and Scenario "B" are essentially the same exact thing. (Essentially.) But... are there some subtleties or nuances that make Scenario "A" and "B" somehow significantly different? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several differences, this isn't an exhaustive list. As you point out, there would likely be gridlock in both scenarios, but there are a number of differences between the two chambers. Let's say the Republicans won the House, and the Democrats won the senate. That would probably lead to the House January 6 Committee being shut down. The House also has the sole power of impeachment, so the House could start an impeachment trial if they so voted. However, the impeachment jury is the Senate, so the Senate would likely acquit in that case. On the other hand, let's say the Dems held the house, and the Republicans took over the Senate (this is less likely according to current polls). In that case, the Jan 6 committee probably stays around. It also affects the presidential succession: the Speaker of the House is next in line assuming the President and Vice President were to resign or otherwise leave office at the same time. The numerical margins also make a difference. Right now the Senate is 50-50 (actually it's 48 D, 2 I that are caucusing D, and 50 R, but there are several conservative Ds like Joe Manchin that have a lot of leverage and power currently), but theoretically, even if Democrats lost the House, but won the Senate, and if they gained more votes in the Senate than their current margin, Dems could still try to pass legislation with the votes of "more liberal" Republicans such as perhaps Adam Kinzinger, or the 24 Republicans who voted for the CHIPS bill[1]. If Dems lose votes in the Senate, they will have a tough time passing legislation even if they have House votes, because of Mitch McConnell controlling the schedule whipping his votes to filibuster. Andrevan@ 04:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kinzinger is not running. Where a Democratic senate becomes of greater importance is in the area of selecting judges, especially for the Supreme Court. If a SCOTUS judge dies or retires, Biden would have an easier time getting his candidate through. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about Kinzinger, bad example on my part. And yes, the court confirmations are another very important role of the Senate, good point. Andrevan@ 07:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is correct. Kinzinger is not running for re-election, which frees him to act unimpededly as a Republican Congressional critic of the GOP/MAGA cult until January 2023, and then as an independent analyst after his retirement becomes effective. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senate approves the President's judicial, cabinet secretary and ambassador nominations. Senate also ratifies any multi-national treaty. The House does none of that. If Congress is split, there would be a persistent legislative gridlock for the whole term, so legislation would usually die in either chamber. But with a D House + R Senate, even judicial appointments can be held hostage by Majority leader McConnell like that of Merrick Garland, not just for SCOTUS but for dozens of lower courts. So, winning the Senate is a more favourable outcome for Democrats, if they want to fill up vacancies in courts, ratify treaties, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that one advantage Trump had when he came into office was there were a lot of lower court nominations he could fill because the Senate wouldn't accept Obama's nominations. But note that it can get more complicated than simple an opposite party Senate holding up appointments. For example, Trump was able to nominate a lot of members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service after a dispute between Sanders and McConnell when Sanders blocked some of Obama's appointments and McConnell refused to allow the rest [2] Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See here for some discussion of the first point [3] Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side of the Senate's unique powers of being the sole body to approve presidential nominations; the House is the only body that can originate revenue bills; in a practical sense this means that an opposite-party House of Representatives can hold up a Presidential budget plan. While a Senate also needs to approve such a plan in the end, it would never get to the Senate if the House didn't approve it first. --Jayron 32 12:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the great replies / information. I really appreciate it. So, there are some functions that the House can only do (and not the Senate) ... like impeachment and introducing revenue bills. And, vice versa, there are some functions that the Senate can only do (and not the House) ... like confirmations, judicial appointments, treaties, etc. Got that. Thanks. Now, I want to focus on passing laws. It is my understanding ... correct me if I am wrong ... that this is the basic process. Either chamber starts the bill ... that chamber approves it ... then, the other chamber has to approve it. Then, the president. Then it becomes law. That's the basic road-map, leaving out all of the minutiae. So, from that perspective -- of passing legislation -- is Scenario "A" and "B" essentially the same thing? The bill starts at one chamber, gets approved, and then ends up at the other chamber and gets approved. (Potentially.) So, in that "road-map" ... that is, the idea of getting legislation passed ... does it really matter if the bill starts at the House and moves to the Senate ... or, vice versa ... starts at the Senate and moves to the House? In other words, from this perspective ... isn't Scenario "A" and "B", in essence, the same thing? Thank you. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they're same. Bills can go in either direction, and then to the President. Except revenue bills, as Jayron said above, which always have to start from the House. Sometimes, however, certain bills get amended in the second chamber, so there could be back and forth with it, as both chambers must pass identical bills. This CrashCourse video on YT might be helpful for a brief of the lawmaking procress. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks to be about it. It must be noted that identical bills have to be passed by both houses; either house may amend any bill; any such amendments cause the bill to get sent back to the other house for approval. Only when the identical bill passes both houses does it get sent to the President for signing. --Jayron 32 18:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about Jayron32's point above. While it's true the House must originate revenue bills, the Senate is free to amend any revenue bill that has been passes by the house to completely change the purpose via a substitute amendment. This is briefly mentioned at Money bill#United States. For example, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 originated as the TARGET Act or "Targeted Rewards for the Global Eradication of Human Trafficking" [4]. This is still reflected in the long title. In this case the original bill was kept in the modified one [5] but the bill was still changed from one making limited changes into a major part of the 2018 United States federal budget. Another famous example is the Affordable Care Act which originated in the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009". In that case, the original bill was eliminated in the amended bill [6] [7]. Likewise, the CARES Act originated as the "Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019" which was also eliminated in the final version [8] [9]. The end result is that if the House really wants to stop the Senate from passing the Senate's version of a budget, they cannot pass even minor money bills like these unless they're certain the Senate is going to pass them in similar form, or at least not dare amend them so drastically. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)08:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]