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.
Showing posts with label filibusters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label filibusters. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Thursday, January 15, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, December 12, 2008
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."
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."
Saturday, November 22, 2008
George Voinovich's Votes to Cut Off Debate in 2008
MCDAC examined Senator George Voinovich's votes on motions to invoke cloture in 2008. A motion to invoke cloture is when the Senate votes to cut-off debate so that legislation can proceed to a vote. It has become the GOP's preferred method of obstructing Democratic sponsored legislation. By preventing bills from coming to a vote, they have avoided putting Bush in the position of vetoing popular legislation. Such votes also mean that so-called "moderates" like Voinovich don't have to go on record on votes. Votes in which they would face the Hobson's Choice of either voting against popular legislation and ticking off the public, or voting for such legislation and ticking off the right-wing base of the GOP.Our examination consisted of going to the Senate's official website at www.senate.gov and examining the votes that were identified as being votes on motions to invoke cloture. We found that in 2008, there were 49 such votes. On those votes, Voinovich voted with the winning side in all but four votes.
On only two of those four votes, did he vote different than the way a majority of the Republican caucus voted. On one of those votes he joined 17 Republican Senators. On that vote, which took place on September 29, 2008, 27 Republicans voted to cut-off debate. On another vote, which took place on June 26, 2008, 39 Republicans voted against cutting-off debate while Voinovich voted to cut-off debate. On the other votes, Voinovich voted with the Republican caucus.
We think that this shows that while Voinovich likes to talk a bi-partisan game, he really doesn't vote on a bi-partisan basis IF the Republican caucus is voting against the Democratic position.
Barack Obama will be putting forth legislation in the 111TH Congress. Legislation designed to turn around America's economy. A lot of this legislation will go against the pro-business, anti-regulation attitude of the Republican party, but will be what a majority of Ohioans want. It will be interesting to see, with two years to go until his re-election campaign, if Voinovich keeps supporting the right-wing position of the GOP Senate caucus.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Voinovich Does It Again
Once again we have a high-profile story on how Voinovich is breaking with Bush over Iraq. This time the media is using a supposed comment Voinovich made about how Bush has "f---d up" in Iraq. Of course, once again Voinovich gets to have his cake and eat it too. He gets to look like he is actually breaking with Bush on Iraq, but when the chips are down, he won't vote against Bush.
This week, there will be a vote on whether to allow an "up or down" vote on the Reed-Levin plan to end American military involvement in the Iraq War. Republicans are threatening a filibuster and the Democrats need 60 votes to cut-off debate. All Voinovich has to do is vote to cut-off debate to send Bush a real message about how he feels about the war. He doesn't even have to vote in favor of the amendment, just allowing a vote would be a way to show Bush what he thinks. Our bet is that he won't do it, that when the chips are down, he will once again support Bush. Any takers?
UPDATE: Click here for an excellent column by Harold Myerson of the Washington Post on the same topic.
UPDATE TWO: Yep, he did it. He voted against the cloture motion which means that the Reed-Levin amendment won't come up for a vote. So just exactly does George V. plan to force Bubble-boy to change course in Iraq? Maybe by wishing really really hard while clapping his hands?
This week, there will be a vote on whether to allow an "up or down" vote on the Reed-Levin plan to end American military involvement in the Iraq War. Republicans are threatening a filibuster and the Democrats need 60 votes to cut-off debate. All Voinovich has to do is vote to cut-off debate to send Bush a real message about how he feels about the war. He doesn't even have to vote in favor of the amendment, just allowing a vote would be a way to show Bush what he thinks. Our bet is that he won't do it, that when the chips are down, he will once again support Bush. Any takers?
UPDATE: Click here for an excellent column by Harold Myerson of the Washington Post on the same topic.
UPDATE TWO: Yep, he did it. He voted against the cloture motion which means that the Reed-Levin amendment won't come up for a vote. So just exactly does George V. plan to force Bubble-boy to change course in Iraq? Maybe by wishing really really hard while clapping his hands?
Friday, July 13, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)