Senate Republicans Don't Want to Work a Full Day, Do They Need Naps

The Senate Republicans are now attempting to block all work by the Senate after 2 pm. How are they doing this? By objecting under Senate Rules to any committee hearings that take place after 2 pm. Now, since most of the work in the Senate is done in committee, this means that committee hearings have to stop by 2 pm.

Now, apparently the Senate Republicans want the media to think that they are doing this as some sort of retaliation for the Democrats passing health care reform by reconciliation. We think, however, that they just want to take afternoon naps. Think about it, your average Republican Senator is a white guy who is in his late 50s or 60s. They need naps. They want naps. This is a good way to get naps.

When, however, you are blocking unemployed workers from getting benefits, it doesn't look too good to want to cut short your own work day, but, hey, if that's what they want, then they should go for it. Of course, Democrats need to point out to voters the desire of Republican Senators to avoid doing a full day's work for more than a full day's pay.

Time to Get Rid of the Filibuster

The reason why we are all holding our breaths today about the vote in Massachusetts's special election can be summed up in one word: filibuster If it wasn't for the filibuster and its requirement that motions to stop debate get 60 votes, then we wouldn't care. We wouldn't care because the Dem majority would go from 10 to 9 and, frankly, while it would be embarrassing to lose Ted Kennedy's old seat, it would not be critical. No, it is only critical because the Senate has the filibuster.

Now, the filibuster is not dictated by the United States Constitution, unlike, say the requirement that every state have two Senators. It was contrived by the Senate itself and has been used by reactionaries to make an institution deliberately designed to be conservative even more conservative.

Of course, just as it was used by Dixiecrats to stop civil rights legislation, it is now being used by Republicans to stop progressive legislation, or, in the case of the health-care reform bill, to take liberal legislation and turn it into conservative mush.

So, how do we get rid of it? Well, two Republicans who used to work for Bill Frist when he was Republican Majority Leader wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review on what they referred to as the "constitutional option." Click on the link to read the article. Then, contact Senator Sherrod Brown's office and tell them that you think the filibuster should go.

Tell Us Who You Are Backing for United States Senate

We are taking a completely unscientific poll as to who our readers are supporting for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat being vacated by George Voinovich. Tell us if you are supporting Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher or Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner. You can take the poll by clicking on the answer in the box on the right hand side of this page. You can also leave us a comment on why you are supporting one or the other.

New Republic Reports Dems Are Going to Avoid Conference Committee on Health Care Reform

Jonathon Cohn of The New Republic is reporting on the magazine's website that Senate and House Democrats are going to avoid a formal conference committee to merge the two versions of the health care reform bill. Instead of convening a separate conference committee, they are going to negotiate informally, merge the two bills, and then vote on a final bill in each chamber.

If this report is true, this is very good news for a lot of reasons. One is that it will speed up the process and allow the Congress to pass health care reform and then move on to other pressing business. Another reason is that it will show Republican Senators that their obstructionism won't stop the Dems from passing health care reform. A third reason is that this will greatly encourage the Democratic base voters that the Senate and House aren't going to let Republicans set the legislative agenda by obstruction.

Of course, this is only one report on one website, and it will be interesting to see if other news organizations start to report the same thing. All in all, though, a very good sign.

Senate Supports Cloture in Fair Pay Act

On Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009, considered the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. There was a motion to invoke cloture and cut off debate. The vote was 72 to cut off debate and 23 to allow debate to continue. Fourteen Republicans voted for the motion and all the votes not to cut off debate came from Republicans. The question is whether the change in the Presidency led to 14 Rs deciding to vote for cloture on this legislation?

If you look at what states the Senators who voted against cloture came from, a pattern emerges. Only two Senators who voted against cloture came from states carried by Obama. On the other hand, seven Republicans who voted in favor of cloture came from states that Obama carried. Those seven Rs include both Republican Senators from Maine, one from North Carolina, one from Florida and Ohio's own George Voinovich.

Although this vote may not get the attention that the Senate's refusal to block the second part of the bank bailout, it is a good sign that progressive legislation won't always be blocked by Republican filibusters. Republican Senators have seen their ranks decimated in the 2006 and 2007 elections. Not all of them want to join the ranks of their fellow elephants.

Time for Senate Dems to Exercise "Constitutional Option" on Filibusters?

Last night the Senate voted 52-35 to cut off debate on the bill that would have given Federal aid to American automakers. Since, however, the bill did not get 60 votes, the cloture motion failed. On the motion nine Republican Senators crossed over to vote for the motion. Four Democrats voted against the motion while 12 Senators did not vote. One of those who voted against the bill was Reid, the Majority Leader, who may have voted the way he did for procedural reasons.

The non-voting Senators included four Democrats and eight Republicans. Of the eight Republicans not voting, three were defeated Republicans. Of those three, two of the Democratic Senators-elect who will be replacing them would probably have voted for the motion. They are the new Democratic Senators from Oregon and New Hampshire. The newly elected Democrat from Alaska is much more of an unknown factor.

So, if you start with the 52 Democrats who voted for the motion, add Reid, add the two newly elected Senators from NH and OR, and then add the four Democrats who weren't present for the vote, you get 59 votes for cloture, and the motion still fails. Of course, one of those who voted against the motion was Coleman from Minnesota. If Franken manages to eke out a victory in MN, then such a motion after January 3rd would have reached the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate.

Why are we going through this analysis? Because there are going to be many votes in the Senate to cut off debate on legislation that Obama will be supporting. Legislation on energy, health care, the environment, and other issues. Despite his margin in the polls, there is a good chance that enough Republicans and Democrats will be found to oppose such motions and they won't pass.

Why do we think that? Because of the 35 Senators who opposed the cloture motion, only four came from states that Obama carried. Of the three Democrats other than Reid who voted against the motion, all three of them came from states that McCain carried.

Think about the legislation that was being debated. According to some experts, if there is a failure of two of the Big Three American automakers, three million Americans could be put out of work. We are not just talking autoworkers. We are also talking about employees of car dealers, parts suppliers, and other related businesses. Indeed, there are some automotive experts who claim that all North American car manufacturing could stop if GM goes down because auto companies like Nissan, Toyota, and Honda, which have American plants, depend on the same suppliers as GM. If GM goes down, the theory goes, so much of the business of those suppliers would be lost that they would also go out of business even though they also sell to foreign-owned plants in the U.S.

If 35 Republicans are willing to risk that kind of disruption to the American economy on this issue, then why will they be willing to support health care reform, energy legislation, education reform, and other big-ticket items on the Obama agenda?

So, here is the question: Should Democrats start laying the groundwork to exercise what conservatives call the "constitutional option" to change the Senate Rules to eliminate the filibuster? Should Democrats just sit back and let a minority of the Senate, representing states that comprise much less than half the nation's population frustrate progressive legislation?

Andrew Jackson, in his first State of the Union message, said that the first principle of our government is that the majority should govern. He said that in the context of calling for a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College and allow direct election of the President by the nation's voters.

The same argument can be raised against the filibuster, only, unlike the Electoral College, it isn't constitutionally mandated. Think about what the adoption of Jackson's philosophy would have meant over the last eight years. Get rid of the Electoral College and Gore becomes President in 2000. Get rid of the filibuster and there is a deadline set for Iraq withdrawal back in 2007 and health care for children is extended to millions more of America's children.

Is there a risk in getting rid of the filibuster? Sure, because in the future there will be a Republican President with a Republican Senate and Democrats will want to frustrate his or her legislative agenda. We think, though, that on the whole, filibusters have been used more often against progressive legislation than against conservative legislation. Get rid of the filibuster and it becomes a lot easier to pass progressive legislation. Grass-roots Democrats should start laying the groundwork for the Senate to exercise the "constitutional option."

Possible Senate Pick-Ups in KY, NC, GA, and MS?

Since most of polls show McCain comfortably ahead in most Southern states, people may not be aware that close Senate races are developing in the South. Republican incumbents in North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, and Mississippi find themselves in very competitive races. In fact, according to this article in Politico, one McCain aide thinks that Elizabeth Dole is certain to lose in North Carolina.

Right now there are only four Democratic Senators from the 11 states that made up the Confederacy. There is one Democratic Senator in Louisana, two in Arkansas, and one in Florida. There are three Democratic Senators from the border states of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They are found in West Virginia with two and one in Missouri. That could change after this election cycle.

Democrats are virtually guaranteed that they will pick up the open seat in Virginia. Right now the Democratic candidate is ahead in North Carolina. The GOP Majority Leader is in a much tougher race than anticipated in Kentucky. The appointed GOP Mississippi Senator is only up by about two percentage points. The Democrats are picking up steam in Georgia after the Republican incumbent voted for the Wall Street bailout.

The reason why these races are getting competitive is that southern states are not immune from the economic turmoil affecting America. Once you get below the race for president and into races where national security and race aren't as relevant to white voters, then Democrats are in a good position to make their case to a listening audience. Further, in North Carolina and Georgia, Democratic candidates are benefiting from the increase in the number of African-American voters caused by this spring's primaries between Clinton and Obama.

Keep your eye on those races, they could be very important in the Democrats' campaign to reach 60 votes in the Senate.

Voinovich Votes Against Ending Debate on Energy Bill

So once again, good old moderate Republican George Voinovich, decides to support big business and the Bush Administration over the interests of the American people. Today the House passed energy bill, which would raise fuel efficiency standards, require electric utilities to increase the use of renewable fuels like wind, and tax big oil companies to help pay for costs associated with the bill, came to a vote in the Senate.

Under the new rules laid out by the Republicans, almost every bill has to get 60 votes or face a filibuster. The energy bill's cloture vote failed in the Senate. Fifty three Senators voted to shut down the debate, 42 voted against shutting down debate, and five Senators didn't vote. Guess how Ol' Moderate George voted? Yep, you got it, he voted with the utilities, the oil companies, and George W. Bush. That's a so called moderate Republican for you: You can always count of them to support Bush in the end.

Does George Voinovich Believe in the Rule of Law?

Okay, so this is not exactly a surprise, but Senators Brown and Voinovich split on the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be Attorney General. One of the more depressing things about Voinovich's support of Bush's agenda over the last several years is the fact that Voinovich is a lawyer and yet seems unconcerned about the assault on the rule of law by the Bush Administration.

Since 9-11 the Bush Administration has claimed the right to conduct survelliance without a warrant; hold an American citizen indefinitely without bringing a charge against him in court; send people to foreign countries to be tortured; and conduct interrogations using methods that are considered torture were they to be done by American military personnel. Through all of this George Voinovich has said little if anything.

All of these practices are assaults on the rule of law. The rule of law includes "the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process." All of the practices described above are assaults on the rule of law in the United States.

One of the exciting things for those of us who are attorneys has been the role of lawyers in confronting the acts of General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. At no small risk to themselves, Pakistani lawyers and judges have resisted the attempt of General Musharraf to set aside the law in his quest to stay in power. These lawyers and judges are willing to put their "money where their mouths are" when it comes to defending the rule of law in Pakistan.

Contrast that with the actions of lawyers like Voinovich who are willing to help Bush set aside the rule of law in the United States. When George Voinovich was sworn in as an attorney, he took an oath to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States. How does he square that oath with his support of this administration?

This is What Control of the U.S. Senate Means

This article in the Washington Post shows what Democratic control of the U.S. Senate means in terms of judicial appointments. While most attention is focused on the U.S. Supreme Court, the various appellate courts in the Federal system are very important courts. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has been a reliable ally of the Bush administration in its so-called "war on terror." That is ending as Republican appointed judges retire and Bush is not able to name reliable conservatives to replace them because of a Democratic Senate. This wouldn't be happening if Democrats hadn't taken control of the U.S. Senate last November. Remember this article the next time you read someone saying that there is no difference between the two political parties.

New York Times Article Avoids the Word "Filibuster" When Discussing Vote on Webb Amendment

If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an article in the New York Times about the Senate's vote on the Jim Webb amendment requiring that troops spend as much time at home as they spent in Iraq before being reployed. This is the headline: "Senate Narrowly Backs Bush in Rejecting Debate on Increasing Time Between Deployments".

Now if you just read the headline, you would believe that a bare majority of United States Senators voted against the Webb amendment and you would be wrong. Actually 56 Senators voted for cloture on the Webb amendment and 41 voted against cloture. Now, here is where it gets really interesting.

Cloture is invoked when a piece of legislation is threatened with a filibuster. Under the Rules of the United States Senate, 60 votes are needed to cut off debate. So what happened on the cloture vote on the Webb amendment was that 56 Senators voted to cut off debate and 41 Senators voted to allow a filibuster. Guess what? The New York Times article never uses the word "filibuster" in discussing this vote.

Now, the Times had no problem using the word "filibuster" when discussing Democratic opposition to appointing right-wing nut-jobs to the Federal bench, but, when it comes to discussing Republican Senators voting against cutting off debate on the Webb amendment, they get a case of the vapors and refuse to call the tactic by its proper name. Here's a spelling lesson for the media: Republican Senators are engaging in F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R-s to block Democratic leglislation on the Iraq War and other issues. If you use the word, the world won't come crashing down on you. Try it, you'll see.

Where Did Mikey Get His Money?

The picture to the left is from www.politicalmoneyline.com and can be viewed here. The information concerns where Richard Michael DeWine got his money. (Did you know that his first name was Richard? Neither did we. We will avoid the obvious in-bad-taste puns.)

According to Political Moneyline, his biggest single source was from what they call "Single-Issue" Groups, followed by people and organizations engaged in "Finance/Insurance", "Health Care", "Communications/Technology", "Business-Retail, Services."

Organized labor gave DeWine $42,500 and public employees gave him $5,000.00.

Interestingly enough organizations and individuals allied with the legal system were 10th on DeWine's list of groups financing his election. We find that interesting because DeWine is an attorney. You think that he would have done better with attorneys and law firms. Makes us feel better about our profession.

The single biggest category of employers listed? Homemakers. Yep, homemakers. Women just staying at home, making brownies, and writing checks to Mike DeWine.

Anyway, that's our report on where Mikey got his money.

Senate Vote on War Shows GOP is Southern Party

If you click on the link in this entry's title you will see a regional breakdown of yesterday's (3.27.2007) Senate vote on the Republican amendment to the Iraqi War funding bill. This breakdown was complied by the Washington Post. The amendment was an attempt to strip language from the bill that imposes a deadline for American troops to be in Iraq.

There were 48 votes for the Republican amendment. Of these 48 votes 22 came from Southern states, 12 from Western states, 8 from Midwestern states, and 6 from Eastern states. This is a small example of the regionalization of the Republican Party. Increasingly it is becoming a Southern based party.

Now on the one hand, given the small state bias in the United States Constitution as seen by the fact that each state has two Senators regardless of population and the Electoral College, this works for the GOP. On the other hand, though, you have to wonder how long a party that is increasingly playing to one section of the country can maintain its viability in national politics.

Will Voinovich Vote to Stop Warner Resolution From Going to the Floor?

Supposedly George Voinovich is against Bush's escalation on the war in Iraq, but the question becomes is he willing to allow a vote on the John Warner Resolution opposing escalation? Today, February 5, 2007, the Senate is scheduled to take a vote on whether the Warner Resolution will be allowed to come to the floor of the Senate. This vote has to obtain 60 votes. If it doesn't, it apparently won't be allowed to get to the floor. (An explanation of why this is so is found by clicking on the link in this entry's title.) Sen. McConnell, (R-KY), the Minority Leader of the Senate is claiming that all Republican Senators, apparently including Warner himself, will vote against allowing the Warner Resolution to come to the floor for debate.

All Republican Senators would include Voinovich, Snowe, Collins, Warner, and Hagel, all Republicans who have claimed to be against Bush's escalation. What they are trying to do is have it both ways, that is, they are trying to get public credit for opposing the escalation, but then cozy up to the White House in voting to block the bill from getting to the floor. Quite frankly they count on the public not being aware of what is going on and they count on the news media not telling the public what is going on.

ABC News Reports: Senators Regret Iraq War Vote

ABC News is reporting that at least 57 Senators would vote against the Iraq War Resolution if it was presented for a vote today. ABC News reports that, at most, only 43 Senators would vote for the resolution. _________________________________________________________________
You can get the full details by clicking on the arrow next to this entry's title. Thanks to the blogger Minor Ripper who sent us the link to this story.