Quote:
Originally Posted by purest
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There was a movement last year during the negotiations for the Dodd-Frank bill to break up these "too big to fail" companies, and that got 33 votes in the Senate. If there was enough popular support out there, if there was a show of force the same way there was a show of force in the Tea Party on the other side for the spending issue, then I think they might actually get something like that.
|
33 votes might as well be zero. Passing something to break up the banks would require a supermajority to avoid filibuster. In an actual contested vote, you'd be lucky to find 10 Senators actually willing to vote 'yes' on such a bill. In a vote that's essentially meaningless (since it will obviously go one way or the other), you get a lot of votes that kowtow to constituents. You'll get a guy to vote 'yes' to breaking up the big banks so he can turn around and tell his constituency 'hey, look -- I voted to break them up.' But if it ever came down to it, even the majority of those 33 would not vote to break up the banks.
And that's only a small portion of the battle. Even if it was passed by both houses of Congress, that kind of ruling would be taken to the courts to rule on its legality. There'd be an army of the best lawyers in the country pushing that kind of ruling back and getting it revoked.