Category Archives: Republican obstructionism

Hastert Rule/Filibuster Below60 – Obstructionist’s Toolbox


John Boehner and the Democrats in the House of Representatives are always invoking the Hastert rule to justify keeping bills from being brought to the floor for consideration. What on earth is the Hastert rule? Which party thought of that? Well it’s all on the internet of course. Dennis Hastert is the namesake give credit for the Hastert rule and he was, of course, a Republican. The Hastert rule allows the Speaker of the House to declare that if a vote doesn’t have a majority of the majority in favor of the bill it cannot come up for a vote. Does that seems kosher to you, and by kosher I mean Constitutional?

In the Senate they are always counting to see if there are 60 votes for a bill. If there aren’t 60 votes in favor then that bill is “filibustered” which used to mean someone would physically stand up and talk until it was too late to consider the bill, but now puts a bill in auto filibuster mode, tabling it just about indefinitely or in other words killing it, as happened with the Immigration Bill. Who thought of that; which party gets the credit (or blame) for that new and deliberate snafu in the democratic process? Once again the Republican brand is all over this.

I am in favor of making both the Hastert rule and the 60 vote filibuster go away. We all can see how much business gets done in Congress with these agenda blockers to fall back on. As you might guess, I am vindicated to learn that we owe both of these strategies to the GOP. These are the tools of obstructionism.

The Speaker of the House can use the Hastert Rule to block the minority, the Democrats and the Minority Leader in the Senate can block the majority by using the filibuster if the majority cannot come up with 60 votes (which they are apparently almost always unable to do). This is how a minority party takes over the Legislative Branch of our government and, although it all seems very much against the intentions of the drafters of our Constitution, it is apparently not illegal and Democrats seem to be unable to reverse the effects of these two rules. It would take the same kind of deep strategy sessions that the Republicans engage in to come up with the next “chess” move that could undo this blockade. Getting angry really won’t do it. Someone needs to figure out how to undo these very effective strategies which are allowing the Republicans to win even though they lost. This is why I refer to the activities of the Republican Party as a coup and why I consider them in revolt against our duly elected government.

Here’s the story on these two monkey wrenches which are holding back legislation and making it impossible for President Obama to pursue any part of the agenda we elected him to put in place.

The Hastert Rule

Why does Dennis Hastert rule the world?

Hastert is the originator of the “Hastert Rule,” which saith that no House Speaker shall bring to the floor any legislation not supported by “the majority of the majority” (i.e., the majority of the Speaker’s caucus).

The current House Speaker, Republican John Boehner, is quaking at the prospect that, to avoid an Oct. 1 government shutdown for which the GOP would almost certainly be blamed, he may have to strip a provision defunding Obamacare (or possibly some other yet-to-be determined demand) from the pending continuing resolution (i.e., temporary appropriation bill). Should Boehner bring a “clean” CR to the floor, he risks losing a majority of his caucus and relying on enemy Democrats to get the bill passed. Even if Boehner sells House Republicans on averting a government shutdown, he may have to violate the Hastert Rule yet again to raise the debt limit, which his caucus is similarly pressuring him to use as a vehicle to defund Obamacare.

Who was Dennis Hastert, creator of this unbreakable political rule? Some biblical prophet who in ancient times carried his admonition, carved into stone tablets, down from Mount Sinai?

Actually, no. State-of-the-art carbon dating establishes that Congress managed for 215 years to function without any Hastert Rule, until 2004. That’s when then-Speaker Hastert, a Republican, pulled from the House floor the bill creating the position of director of national intelligencebecause it lacked support from a majority of the Republicans he was supposedly leading. Far from being praised for this surrender of authority to the “majority of the majority,” Hastert was criticized for spinelessness. (The bill eventually passed with a few tweaks to appease two grumpy committee chairmen.)

Before Hastert, speakers ignored the majority of the majority whenever circumstances warranted it. The Atlantic’s Molly Ball recently noted that Tip O’Neill had no choice but to violate the yet-unwritten Hastert Rule many times because his caucus contained a lot of conservative southern Democrats. (O’Neill’s various triumphs over partisan division are nicely documented in Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked, by MSNBC host and onetime O’Neill staff aide Chris Matthews, due out next week.)

But O’Neill was hardly unique in this respect. House Speakers are expected to press forward with important legislation even when it’s not supported by a majority of their party.  Speaker Tom Foley, a Democrat (1989-1995) violated the Hastert Rule at least six times, as did his successor, Newt Gingrich. Even after Hastert codified his Rule, Nancy Pelosi violated it at least seven times.

A New York Times tally last April calculated that the Hastert Rule had been violated 36 times over the previous 22 years. Boehner has already violated it several times himself. At best the Hastert Rule is (to quote Bill Murray in Ghostbusters) “more of a guideline than a rule.”

What about Hastert himself? Today he is remembered for being the longest-serving Republican speaker in history (1999-2007), just nosing out “Uncle” Joe Cannon (1903-11). Cannon was the most powerful House speaker in history, and he was eventually ousted in a revolt. Hastert, by contrast, was a onetime gym coach elevated from deputy whip to the speakership as a sort of proxy for Tom DeLay, the powerful House majority whip, who knew he was too controversial to take the top job. During his speakership, Hastert (who now works as a lobbyist) was regarded as one of the Bush era’s less-consequential political figures. Once when writing a DeLay profile for George magazine, I asked Hastert if he had ever disagreed with DeLay about anything. He said he had but that he couldn’t remember those instances.

But perhaps Hastert had more spine than we give him credit for, because it turns out he violated the Hastert Rule no fewer than 12 times, or more than any speaker in recent memory (except perhaps O’Neill). If Denny Hastert must be elevated to the status of prophet, remember him not for the craven rule he invented, but for his willingness to violate it again and again. Hastert never suffered any notable consequences for these transgressions. Speaker Boehner, take note.


The Filibuster

From April to June 2010, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of monthly public hearings entitled “Examining the Filibuster” to examine the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate. The Committee held the first such hearing, entitled “History of the Filibuster 1789–2008” on April 22. It held the second hearing, entitled “The Filibuster Today and Its Consequences”, on May 19. On June 23, the Committee held the third hearing, entitled “Silent Filibusters, Holds and the Senate Confirmation Process”.

On December 10, 2010, Independent democratic socialist Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont began a “Tax Cut Filibuster” at 10:25 am and finished at 6:59 pm later that day. on the floor of the Senate. Sanders’ office said the intention was to “speak as long as possible against a tax deal between the White House and congressional Republicans.

In response to the use of the filibuster in the 111th Congress, all Democratic senators returning to the 112th Congress, signed a petition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requesting that the filibuster be reformed, including abolishing secret holds and reducing the amount of time given to post-cloture debate.

On December 6, 2012, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader, became the first senator to filibuster his own proposal. Without giving a lengthy speech, he invoked the rules of filibuster on his bill to raise the passage threshold to 60 votes. McConnell had attempted to force theopposition Democrats, who had a majority in the Senate, to refuse to pass what would have been a politically costly measure, but one that would nonetheless solve the current ongoing debt ceiling deadlock. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) chose to call a vote on the proposal regardless, McConnell immediately invoked the rules of filibusters on his own proposal, effectively doing the first self-filibuster in Senate history.

At the conclusion of the 112th Congress, the Senate debated filibuster reform. Negotiations on changes to the rules for filibustering were set to take place during January 2013.

On March 6, 2013, Senator Rand Paul launched a talking filibuster to stall John Brennan’s nomination confirmation vote for the position of Director of the CIA demanding an answer from the Obama Administration to the question: “Should a President be allowed to target, and kill an American by drone attack, on American soil, without due process?” John Brennan was considered to be the main architect of the drone program. After 12 hours and 52 minutes of talking, it became the 9th longest filibuster in U.S. history.

Negotiations between the two parties resulted in two packages of amendments to the rules on filibusters being approved by the Senate on January 25, 2013. Changes to the standing orders affecting just the 2013-14 Congress were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing the Senate majority leader to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill. Changes to the permanent Senate rules were passed by a vote of 86 to 9. The changes occurred through Senate Resolution 15 and Senate Resolution 16; Senate Resolution 15 applies only to the 113th session, while Senate Resolution 16 changed two standing rules of the Senate.

The series of changes to the filibuster rules announced represented a compromise between the major reforms put forward by some Democratic senators and the changes preferred by Republican senators. Those seeking reform, including Democrats and liberal interest groups, had originally proposed a variety of strong reforms including: ending the filibuster completely; banning the use of filibusters on the motion to proceed; re-introducing the “talking filibuster” where the minority would have to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede passage of a vote; banning the use of filibusters on House-Senate conferences; and forcing the minority to produce 41 votes in order to block cloture. These more extensive reforms of the filibuster could only have been implemented by a decision from the Senate’s presiding officer declaring it unconstitutional.

The new rules remove the requirement of 60 votes in order to begin debate on legislation and allow the minority two amendments to measures that reach the Senate floor, a change implemented as a standing order that expires at the end of the current term. In the new rules, the amount of time to debate following a motion to proceed has been reduced from 30 hours to four. Additionally, a filibuster on the motion to proceed will be blocked if a petition is signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader. For district court nominations, the new rules reduce the required time before the nominee is confirmed after cloture from 30 hours to two hours. Under the new rules, if senators wish to block a bill or nominee after the motion to proceed, they will need to be present in the Senate and debate. Following the changes, 60 votes are still required to overcome a filibuster to pass legislation and confirm nominees and the “silent filibuster”—where senators can filibuster even if they leave the floor—remained in place.

Following the announcement of the new rules, Senator Dick Durbin, who was involved in the negotiations, stated that the deal reached was true agreement between the majority and minority leaders, and was overwhelmingly supported by Senate Democrats. However, the agreement was negatively received by liberal interest groups including CREDO, Fix the Senate Now, a coalition of approximately 50 progressive and labor organizations, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, both of whom had advocated for eliminating the “silent filibuster” on the grounds that it allows Republicans to filibuster progressive bills. Liberal independent Senator Bernie Sanders argued that the requirement for 60 votes to pass legislation makes it “impossible” to deal with the crises faced by the United States. Conservatives also criticized the reforms, arguing that the changes negatively impacted the minority party. In particular, Heritage Action for America argued that reducing the length of time for debate allows senior lawmakers to “avoid accountability”. Additionally, Senator Rand Paulcriticized the rules change for limiting the “ability of Senators to offer amendments”.

[Attribution numbers have been removed to make this article more readable; just follow the link if you want to see the source attributions.]

This is the view from the cheap seats.
This blog post is also available at



Cliches and Analogies/Hope and Change


Late last week Stuart Stevens, a Conservative, wrote an article criticizing Obama for failing to fulfill the promises of “hope” that he made before his election. Republicans seems to enjoy doing this every once in a while because they apparently “hope” that we will fall for this twisted line of reasoning. They like to blame others for the things they do and their special “whipping boy” is Barack Obama (how racist is that?). We have heard Sarah Palin mock Obama for his inability to fulfill his promise of “hope and change” and Michelle Bachmann has, beyond all sense, made this a key item in her limited repertoire of political tidbits. Now we have this Stevens guy in the Daily Beast going over, once again, in case we missed it the first one hundred and fifty times, his supreme disappointment with Obama’s ineffectiveness .

Of course we know that extreme Republicans killed the “Hope” that Obama promised and now they want to use this argument, which has almost become a cliché, this insistence that Obama has not been able to “change” anything as their message to elect Republicans in 2014 and 2016.  I just don’t think that you get to kick our first African American President to the curb, to force him to try borderline Constitutional strategies in order to get anything done – to basically act like a bunch of white thugs – and then turn the obstructionism on its head and blame the “big empty” that is Washington politics on the person you have hog-tied. The South rises? It’s embarrassing to America and Americans. Notice that Obama did not offer hope and change in his second term. He just grimly raised a flag that insisted Forward (period). So we slog forward, but we would rather be going by high speed rail.

There is an astonishing similarity between what the GOP has done to Obama and what George Zimmerman did to Trayvon. In their hearts, I’m sure, the GOP feels they are just acting in self-defense. I think we can be pretty sure that Obama is defending himself too, but he is also defending the American people.

Don’t vote for bullies – vote for Democrats in 2014 and in 2016.

Here’s the link for that article that sums up Obama’s “failures” in case you want to read about this old, tired subject once again.