So I just looked to see who appointed the current parliamentarian. It was then Sen. Majority

[niyad]

Leader Harry Reid. As of 2018, makes a bit over 172,000 per year.

[onecaliberal]

1. People who have the general opinion of I've got mine, fuck you, should not be

within a thousand miles of government.

[Magoo48]

2. +1

[pbmus]

5. someone say representation...anyone

[onecaliberal]

6. The only "people" with representation are those who can afford to own members of Congress.

republicans are feverishly working to take away the right to vote for millions.

[Bettie]

15. True. There are a lot of

reps trying to help us, but they are blocked by the pet poodles of various special interests and rich people.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

9. Yeah!

So when exactly did she say that?

[Hortensis]

13. Her duties have absolutely nothing to do with helping or being mean

to low income people. Her role is to decide on compliance with the rules congress operates under.

I heard she arrived at the same evaluation of the principles involved as the other times this has been presented to the current parliamentarian for decision.

Note that Biden/Harris/Schumer are not contesting it.

And of course her salary's not exactly riches in DC by a long shot. Even the lowest strata of wealth these days are far above salaried folk. If she intersected their stratospheric circles at all, it'd be strictly in passing at occasional large, unexclusive gatherings.

[joshcryer]

3. Looks like she's a scapegoat to me.

She's "beloved" by both sides of the isle. She seems like a nice person from what I'm reading about her (like, really nice).

$15 can't be done through reconciliation. The SCOTUS would override it within weeks. I think though that she was scapegoated and is protecting the Republican interests, because we're now talking about her, and not the fact that the Republicans are forcing reconciliation yet again like they have done so since Obama.

[onecaliberal]

7. Democrats need to start running ads in these districts telling people if you want these things

you'll need to replace the person there now who doesn't want you to have it. They want you to work 3 jobs and 75 hours a week and still be living in poverty.

[niyad]

4. I don't know anything about her except what I just read. She has served under both Sen. Reid,

and mcturtle.

[tritsofme]

8. It is inane and ridiculous that people are criticizing her.

All she has done is do her job, which is to evaluate whether provisions qualify for reconciliation. Minimum wage wasn’t even a particularly close call, President Biden has been telegraphing this decision for weeks himself.

It should be obvious that any blame lies with the senators who write the rules, not the woman they hired to advise on their meaning.

[joshcryer]

10. She's doing her job but she could've turned a blind eye in this instance.

And let the Trump SCOTUS override it, which would have had a more political backing to it. But that would've been a highly partisan decision. She should've done it though. She's been serving 8 years. Doing it wrong once wouldn't have hurt.

[tritsofme]

12. That is, quite frankly, bullshit.

I won’t criticize this women for properly performing her job. What you’re saying is absurd.

And I have no clue what you are taking about with SCOTUS, they don’t have a thing to do with the reconciliation process.

[joshcryer]

14. If she turned a blind eye states would immediately sue over it it.

And the SCOTUS would throw it out because it passed through reconciliation.

Sometimes not properly performing the job is the right decision, especially because that's how the other side gets away with this shit. Let it pass, it wouldn't have affected the rest of the bill, the SCOTUS would take away $15 minimum wage, and everyone would calling for packing the court. That's how the other side operates. Fight fire with fire.

But no I do not slight this woman for doing the correct thing, it's just how we keep getting screwed over.

[tritsofme]

16. I'm not sure what's given you the impression that SCOTUS would throw out the minimum wage increase?

There is nothing unconstitutional about the minimum wage increase, it is a matter of Senate rules.

[joshcryer]

18. You're right, I thought it would violate the Budget and Accounting Act.

I'm not thinking clearly.

[mcar]

11. I don't know her opinion on the minimum wage. Do you?

The Parliamentarian looks at the rules - nothing else. You may disagree with the outcome, but to smear this woman with no justification is just wrong.

[niyad]

17. Perhaps you could point out exactly WHERE in those two, brief sentences, I smeared her.

Claiming that I said, or did, something that I did not is you doing the same thing of which you accused me.