Filibuster

The Republican Party Is a Party of ‘NO’

Rebecca Lehrman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:52:07 -0800

The Republicans in Congress are at it again, stonewalling everything. Last time we called it “block and blame.” Stop everything, then blame the Democrats for getting nothing done.

Republicans last year in the 110th Congress filibustered more legislation, and required more cloture votes to break those filibusters, than any Congress in history. The tactic was used to stall and halt key legislation, and give Congress the stigma of a “do-nothing Congress.” As former Republican Sen. Trent Lott remarked, “The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us.”

Now there is a new form of obstructionism in the Senate. Senate Republicans have been blocking the confirmation of a large number of the Obama administration’s nominees, and it’s not because of past scandal or competency worries, but mainly because of egregious holds that have little to do with their politics or suitability for the position.

Holds on nominations are certainly not, on their own, an audacious tactic. Used reasonably, they allow Congress time to more comprehensively question a nominee’s legitimacy. But the current practice by Republicans of extensive use for uncertain duration for even the most qualified and uncontroversial of Obama’s nominees is pure obstructionism.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) chastised his former party on Fox News Sunday morning, saying there's no working with the GOP.

"On the Republican side, it is no, no, no. A party of obstructionism," he said.

In years past, uncontroversial nominees who received bipartisan support made it easily through Senate confirmation. But nowadays uncontroversial nominees are simply pawns in the larger war against Obama’s agenda. By preventing the confirmation of almost all nominees, Republicans are forcing Sen. Reid to negotiate or waste floor time on each unreasonable count of obstructionism.

During President Bush’s time, only a handful of partisan nominees received opposition, and the filibuster was used as an extreme of last resort. By Sen. Reid’s count, the Senate has confirmed 366 Obama nominees. In contrast, by their first term, Bush had 421 nominees in place, Clinton had 379 nominees, and 480 of President Regan’s nominees had been confirmed. 53 of Obama’s nominees are still waiting for a full Senate vote, and another 175 are pending in committee. Furthermore, since its conception in 1949, cloture votes have been forced on only 24 nominees, but in the first nine months of the Obama administration there have been 5 such cloture votes.

Sen. Reid spoke on the floor last week:

"I would try to explain the Republican reason for their refusal, but as with so many other things they oppose, a rationale simply doesn’t exist. Senate Republicans are simply so opposed to everything – absolutely everything – that they even oppose putting people in some of the most important positions in our government.

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that those who have chosen to serve our country must be able to get to work without delay.

M. President, perhaps those watching and listening think this is how the Senate always operates. It is not."

Last week, Obama declared a national emergency after the flu outbreak, and yet the Senate has yet to confirm Dr. Regina Benjamin as the surgeon general. Well-qualified nominees who receive bipartisan support should be able to be rewarded with a smooth Senate confirmation process. The unchecked use of “block and blame” methods poses precarious consequences. These obstructionary tactics are unprecedented for both parties and the practice needs to stop. The Republicans need to stop furthering their political interests and begin to concern themselves with American interests. Obstruction hinders progress; well-qualified candidates should be supported and not tied up in encumbering red-tape while our country continues to suffer.

Succeeding at Failure: Republicans Drag Down Congress

Eric Lotke — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 20:33:53 -0700

The Republican strategy of obstruction is working. The latest Pew poll shows Congressional Favorability Falls to 24-Year Low

Former Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss, didn’t hide his goals. "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us," he told Roll Call in April of 2007.

We call the technique “block and blame.” Obstruct all progress, and blame Democrats for getting nothing done. We documented it carefully in the previous (110th) session of Congress. Republicans set a new record for filibusters.

Bob Borosage called it “knee-capping the postman and then complaining that the mail is late.” (July 30, 2008).

He predicted, “They’ll bring down the temple in the hope that both parties will be equally discredited in the rubble.” (August 2, 2007)

Sadly, his prediction is proving true. People still agree with Democrats on most issues, but they don’t parse the partisan bickering. It just looks like dysfunction in Congress, and the Democrats are in charge. As Pew puts it, “this could take a toll on the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections.”

Busting The Filibuster

OurFuture.org Staff — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 07:35:27 -0700

The Electoral College is provided for in the United States Constitution. The filibuster is not. In fact, the word doesn’t appear in any of our founding documents. Its derivation is from the Spanish filibustero, meaning “pirate” or “freebooter.” In the legislative context, a filibuster is the use of delaying tactics to block legislation.[i] It is a mechanism available only in the Senate. As political scientist Jean Edward Smith has pointed out, “It is now possible for the senators representing 34 million people who live in the 21 least populous states – a little more than 11 percent of the nation’s population – to nullify the wishes of the representatives of the remaining 88 percent of Americans.”[ii]

The right to extended debate came about quite by accident. In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the body to “move the previous question,” thereby ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806, outgoing Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous question motion had been used so sparingly up to then that it should be eliminated. The Senate agreed, and so the potential for a filibuster came into being. Without a previous question motion, the Senate left itself with no way to limit debate short of gaining unanimous consent.

One of the Senate’s earliest filibusters took place in 1841 when the Democratic minority tried to prevent the Senate taking up a bank bill authored by Henry Clay. After a long and protracted debate, Clay threatened to change the Senate rules to allow the majority to act. But Thomas Hart Benton and John C. Calhoun denounced the attempt by Clay to stifle debate. Clay ultimately conceded defeat.[iii]

It was not until 1917 that the Senate developed a way of shutting down dilatory tactics of an obstreperous minority. It is called the cloture rule. During the closing days of the session that year, a group of isolationist senators who opposed the entry of the United States into World War I filibustered a bill which would have allowed President Wilson to arm U.S. merchant ships. The President denounced them as a “little group of willful men” and called on the Senate to change its rules.[iv]

During the floor debate which followed, Sen. Thomas J. Walsh, D-Mont., opined that the Senate, like the House, had no rules to govern it at the start of each session and must adopt new rules pursuant to Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. That section provides that the Senate has the power to “…determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” In an environment where nobody could predict what would happen next and both sides fearing the worst outcome, the parties got together to negotiate a cloture rule which was embodied in Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate. It provided that a two-thirds vote of all senators could cut off debate.

From the late 1920s to the late 1960s, the filibuster became associated almost entirely with the struggle over civil rights. Defeated during that time were anti-lynching bills, anti-poll tax bills, and anti-discrimination bills—all aimed to protect and provide equality to blacks in the South. In fact, the longest filibuster ever delivered was in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1959 by Strom Thurmond, D-S.C. It lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes and would have gone on longer had Thurmond’s doctors not forced him to quit out of concern for kidney damage. [v] In an attempt to end that debate, majority leader Lyndon Johnson, D-Texas, brokered a compromise with Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., which resulted in the following two changes to Rule XXII:

Cloture would be possible on the vote of two-thirds of members present and voting; and
The rules would include a statement that the rules of the Senate shall continue in force, at all times, except as amended by the Senate.[vi]

Most would agree in hindsight that Russell got the better deal. By agreeing to the second point, Johnson had in effect conceded the argument made by Sen. Walsh 42 years earlier.

In 1975, the filibuster issue was revived by post-Watergate Democrats who became frustrated by their seeming inability to enact meaningful campaign finance laws. Sen. James Allen, D-Ala., blocked these efforts with a series of filibusters. Sen. Walter Mondale, D-Minn., urged his colleagues to eliminate the cloture rule. He and other Democrats were able to break Allen’s filibuster with a little help from an unlikely source—Vice President Nelson Rockefeller (who was presiding officer at the time). He sided with the Democrats, who had moved that Allen was out of order. When Allen appealed the ruling to the full Senate, the majority voted him down. Nervous Senate leaders, aware they were in the midst of debate about the “nuclear option,” offered up a compromise. On March 7, 1975, the Senate voted 56-27 to amend Rule XXII to provide for cloture by three-fifths of all members from the previous two-thirds of members present and voting.[vii] Thus came about the 60-member threshold that exists to this day.

The story took a turn for the worse when, in the early 1970s, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield—intending to dilute the power of the minority—inadvertently made filibustering easier.

The extended speechifying made famous by Strom Thurmond and Huey Long before him has been replaced by what legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk have dubbed the “stealth” filibuster.[viii] Its genesis was the early 1970s, when it became apparent to then majority leader Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., that delaying tactics such as objections to unanimous consent motions; forcing the previous day’s journal to be read aloud in its entirety; suggesting the absence of a quorum; and, of course, extended periods of time holding the floor were causing the Senate to fall behind in doing the people’s business. (Contrary to popular legend, the workload of the modern-day Senate is substantial. Most members could make a convincing argument for the proposition that they really don’t have time to wait out a filibuster.[ix]) In response, Mansfield devised a “two-track” system where the mornings were devoted to filibustering and the afternoons to pressing business. With liberal Democrats taking the floor to argue against further funding of the Vietnam War and in favor of stripping right-to-work provisions out of federal labor laws, there was bipartisan support for his efforts. While this dual system may have solved Mansfield’s problems over the short term, over the long term it has proved to be disastrous. An explanation for this statement is in order.

Rather than dividing mornings and afternoons between filibustered bills and other matters, over time the Senate has come to a point in time where it seldom takes up legislation unless the majority leadership has counted 60 votes. In other words, a credible threat that 41 senators won’t vote for cloture is enough to keep a bill off the floor on most occasions. Boston College historian Julian Zeliger puts it this way: “Mansfield’s measure, which was intended to promote efficiency, inadvertently encouraged filibusters by making them politically costless and painless.”[x]

One way for a senator to let her colleagues know that she intends to pursue a filibuster is to place a “hold” on a bill, thereby letting her colleagues know she will not accede to unanimous consent. Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein has noted that in the modern Senate holds “are routinely employed—often anonymously—against bills or people the senator has nothing against, but wants to take as hostages for leverage on something utterly unrelated to the hold itself.”[xi]

If members actually had to hold the floor as in the days of Senators Long and Thurmond, most filibusters would end quickly. The reason is that we live in an age where this public disgust over partisan gridlock. Public airing of the old-fashioned filibuster on C-Span and elsewhere would not be something most Senators would want the public to see. In the current climate, it would be sound political strategy for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to force the Republicans to engage in extended debate on a major issue such as health care reform. Best of all, no change in Senate rules would be required.

Few screen images are more memorable than the filibuster waged by Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The image of the naïve newcomer holding the Senate floor until he collapses in fatigue endures as a portrait of how government should work. In the process, he shames the compromised and corrupt majority into submission. But that is not the filibuster of today.

Famously, the U.S. Senate is called the more deliberative of the two national legislative bodies. But the filibuster as practiced today is not about deliberation. Deliberation is a good thing. Instead, the modern silent filibuster fosters legislative paralysis. Even bills that have overwhelming support are often slowed down by extended debate. It encourages rampant individualism and obstructionism and has impaired the Senate’s ability to meet its constitutional responsibilities.

In the Senate’s most recent session, 112 filibusters were mounted. Fifty-one were successful.[xii] And who were they mounted by? The very same folks who are now telling us that health care reform shouldn’t be achieved through the budget reconciliation process (which would lower the threshold for passage to 51 votes, thereby circumventing the filibuster). Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., in particular, worries that it will constitute “an act of violence” on senate collegiality and comity. Mr. Gregg and some of his Republican colleagues have short memories. When they controlled the Senate earlier in the decade, they had no problem using this very same process to enact George Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. And it was Mr. Gregg who led the charge.

(Of course, with the recent defection of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter into the ranks of the Democrats, only the seating of Al Franken is holding up the attainment of that magic number: 60. Specter will join other centrist Democrats such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. One or more of them may not see eye to eye with their more liberal colleagues. So, having the ability to cut off debate doesn’t mean that on all issues and votes the Senate will be filibuster-proof. Unlike the House of Representatives, independence in the Senate is an honored tradition.)

Should Franken be seated soon, as seems likely, it will be truly historic because achieving cloture has been a difficult proposition. Since the rule was created in 1917, it was only during seven of the twelve years of the Roosevelt Administration that the Senate had more than 67 senators, enough to cut off debate. And that, of course, was at the height of the New Deal. Only once since the 60-vote cloture threshold was set in 1975 have Senate Democrats attained that majority. That was in 1977-78.[xiii]

In the past, both Republicans and Democrats have opposed ending the filibuster completely, but an opportunity to significantly change Senate Rule XII may be in the offing, perhaps by reducing the threshold for cloture to 60 percent of those present and voting.Whether real reform comes about will depend on the importance of the particular issue under consideration and the public outcry that accompanies the Senate’s failure to act. At least, that’s what history tells us.

[i] Sarah A. Binder and Steven S. Smith, Politics or Principle: Filibustering in the United States Senate (Brookings Institution Press, 1997), 3

[ii] Jean Edward Smith, “Filibusters: The Senate’s Self-Inflicted Wound,” New York Times (March 2, 2009) A16

[iii] John J. Patrick, Richard M. Pious, and Donald A. Richie, The Oxford Guide to the United States Government (Oxford University Press, 2001), 213

[iv] Ibid. at 286

[v] Martin Gold and Dimple Dupta, “The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster” (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2004) 205

[vi] 86 Cong. Rec. 493 (1959)

[vii] William Greider, “Stop Senator No,” The Nation, (December 29, 2008), 17; 121 Cong. Rec. 5651-52 (1975)

[viii] Catherine Fisk and Erwin Chemerinsky, “The Filibuster,” 49 Stanford Law Review 181 (1997), 201

[ix] Much of the Senate’s work is done in committees. If Senators had to be on the floor for extended periods of time, there would be less time available to mark up bills, hold hearings, and negotiate both the content and scheduling of legislation.

[x] Quoted by Scott Shane, “Henry Clay Hated It. So Does Bill Frist.” New York Times, Week in Review, (November 24, 2004), E1

[xi] Norman Ornstein, “Our Broken Senate,” The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute (March-April 2008), 18

[xii] Jean Edward Smith, “Filibusters: The Senate’s Self-Inflicted Wound,” New York Times (March 2, 2009) A16

[xiii] Email from Sarah Binder, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution and Professor of political science, George Washington University (March 3, 2009)

Obstruction Alert: Renewable Energy Stalled in Senate

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:22:54 -0800

A stubborn conservative minority in the U.S. Senate in December stood in the way of sensible energy legislation that would shift tax breaks away from Big Oil, which doesn't need them, and toward renewable energy companies that do. All indications are they would do it again if the energy bill that passed the House by a wide margin last week was brought to the Senate floor. The Senate leadership should do it anyway. Let the American public see who is standing for common sense energy and tax policy and who stands for throwing more tax benefits at cash-soaked oil companies.

Oil hit a record-breaking $104 a barrel on Wednesday, and with that oil company profits are sure to break records as well — just as was the case for Exxon Mobil, which last month recorded the largest quarterly profit ever for an American company. Flush with cash and encouraged by the high price oil is fetching on the world market, Exxon Mobil has announced that it will spend $25 billion to $30 billion a year through at least 2012 on capital and exploration projects.

Join environmental leaders in a discussion of the real and present dangers of climate change and how to mobilize for a different energy policy.

Announcements like that one bolster the arguments made by House Democratic leaders, who steered to passage the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act (HR 5351) by a vote of 236-182. The bill cancels just under $14 billion worth of subsidies to the five biggest U.S. oil companies so those funds can be used to help pay for subsidies for companies that produce power from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

The total amount of the canceled tax subsidies is only half of what Exxon Mobil spent in 2007 buying back its own stock. Clearly, Exxon Mobil doesn't need an assist from American taxpayers.

The legislation is now sitting in the Senate Finance Committee, where Max Baucus, D-Mont., is the chairman. When similar legislation came before the Senate in December, 59 members voted to allow the legislation to proceed to a final vote, but 40 senators—39 Republicans and one Democrat—voted in favor of filibuster, goaded on by a veto threat from President Bush. That effectively killed a bill that the majority of the Senate, not to mention a majority of the American people, favored.

Bloomberg quotes an oil industry analyst as saying that since that vote, "we have seen no indication that Republican opposition to the oil and natural gas tax hikes [has] abated, making the offsets the Democrats seek for the renewable programs the albatross on the bill."

Nonetheless, on Monday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised:

"As oil prices reach record highs in a weakening economy, Democrats remain committed to repealing Big Oil's tax breaks and instead use that money to expand incentives for investing in energy-efficient vehicles and renewable energy.

"Bush Republicans blocked our efforts to do so last year, but we will soon give them another chance to help lower prices at the pump and reduce our reliance on oil."

One way to get the bill through the Senate, reports Congressional Quarterly, "is to include reconciliation instructions on the energy tax provisions in the fiscal 2009 budget resolution, a process that would provide a way around the Senate’s 60-vote hurdle for ending a filibuster."

But the Senate leadership should not shy away from one more frontal assault on the obstructionists who cling to the laughable White House line that repealing unnecessary tax breaks for cash-drunk oil companies amounts to a tax increase. We should see who is prepared to face 30-second ads in their states calling attention to their vote for tax breaks for maintaining the status quo of oil dependency and against incentives to move toward a clean energy future.

Obstructionist: Hometown Paper Denounces McConnell

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:59:00 -0800

Obstruction Again: GOP Minority Blocks Stimulus

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:50:05 -0800

Once again, an obstinate Republican minority in the Senate vetoes the majority will, this time on a stimulus package that had bipartisan legislative and broad public support.

Forty senators voted to filibuster the Senate version of the plan, a combination of tax rebate checks, business tax breaks and benefit changes designed to cushion the blow of the current economic downturn, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Fifty-nine senators voted to move the measure to a final vote, but it takes 60 votes to block a filibuster. In the end, Reid changed his vote to "no," a common procedural move that enables him to bring the measure back to the floor. The final vote was 58-41.

The Washington Post reported:

The defeat by the narrowest of margins nearly ensures passage of a less expensive stimulus plan fashioned by President Bush and House leaders, though the Senate may make some changes. But it keeps the government on track to begin sending hundreds of dollars in payments to most Americans this spring.

"Given a chance to act as recession looms, more than 40 Republicans today said no to helping 20 million seniors and no to 250,000 disabled veterans. They said no to those who have lost their jobs and no to small business," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said after the vote.

The Senate package, which included numerous provisions not offered by the House plan, attracted powerful supporters. Automakers Ford and General Motors, home builders, Realtors and mortgage bankers joined the AARP to press Republicans to embrace the Senate measure. Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) left the campaign trail to make rare appearances in the Senate chamber.

Over the past year, we've documented the routine use of the filibuster by the Republican minority to block measures supported by the Democratic majority and a majority of the American public. In December, the Senate Republican minority, led by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, broke the all-time record for filibusters in a single Senate session in just over 11 months.

In this case, this band of Republicans set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner over an economic stimulus package that, while passed by the Democratic majority in the House, has been widely denounced as a weak political compromise with the Bush administration (particularly forcefully by Robert Borosage) that would not reach many of the people who are being most hurt by the oncoming recession.

That is why the Senate bill added provisions that would have extended benefits to working poor who do not pay income taxes and who therefore would not have gotten tax rebate checks under the House bill. Also excluded from the House bill, but added in the Senate bill, were seniors and disabled veterans who received at least $3,000 in Social Security or veterans benefits.

But the Republican lemmings who follow McConnell's lead appear to have been more concerned about doing the bidding of the White House—with McConnell claiming that the Senate package "might not even get signed by the president"—than doing any critical thinking about whether the White House-backed approach was best for the economy.

That critical thinking could have taken place in a House-Senate conference committee. If the Republican minority allowed the Senate bill to pass, the Senate would enter into negotiations with the House, whose bill the Senate Republicans indicated they preferred. Sure, House-Senate conferences are often messy affairs, but that is how the political process is supposed to work. That is where the compromises are supposed to happen.

For decades, that is how the process worked, until the Senate's most conservative Republicans decided that they had the unilateral right to cancel out the 2006 election returns that gave Democrats majority control of both houses of Congress. In fact, while they have the ability to do that, they don't have the right. That's why the Republicans need to be called on their obstructionist abuse of the filibuster every time it happens.

Judicial Nominee Filibusters

Isaiah J. Poole — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:22:13 -0800

Republican obstructionists are quick to point out the filibusters used by Democrats to hold up some White House judicial nominees during the 108th and 109th Congress. But the comparison is unfair.

First, Republicans now filibuster far more than Democrats ever did. The Republicans in the current Congress are on pace to filibuster more than twice the historical high.

Second, Republicans have filibustered the entire Democratic agenda, while the Democrats’ filibusters were only on judicial nominees.

Third, the Democrats’ filibusters of judicial nominations were uncommon. Most nominees passed without controversy. Only a handful of extreme partisan judicial nominees received opposition. The filibuster was the resistance of last resort against a president who refused to compromise and ignored the constitutional mandate that judges be nominated with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.¹

The vast majority of Bush’s judicial nominees passed (290 of 338). Democrats only filibustered extremists.²
The Democrats passed a higher percentage of Bush’s judicial nominees than the Republicans passed of President Bill Clinton’s nominees (85 percent v. 72 percent).³

President	Confirmed	Not Confirmed	Total Nominated	Percent Confirmed
George W. Bush	290	48	338	85.8%
Bill Clinton	372	116	488	76.2%
George H.W. Bush	192	58	250	76.8%
Ronald Reagan	375	47	422	88.9%

1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2.

2. Campaign for America’s Future analysis
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations107.htm;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations108.htm;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations109.htm;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations.htm

3. Campaign for America’s Future analysis
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations107.htm;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations108.htm;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations109.htm;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations.htm

FILIBUSTERED: The Will of the People

Isaiah J. Poole — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:02:57 -0800

Republican obstructionism not only slows down the legislative process, it thwarts the will of the American people. Here is how the nation feels about legislation the Republicans have blocked. The green percentages indicate where majority sentiment in Congress coincided with majority sentiment in the country.

Issue	Bill #	Approve	Disapprove
War in Iraq (Newsweek, July 2007)	H.R. 1591	27%	68%
Troop Withdrawal (Gallup, May 2007)	H.R. 1591	59%	36%
Medicare Drug Price Negotiation (ABC News/ Washington Post, January 2007)	H.R. 4 S. 3	79%	17%
Stem Cell Research (Gallup, April 2007)	S. 5	64%	31%
Renewable Energy (ABC/Washington Post/Stanford University, May 2007)	H.R. 6	70%	7%
Performance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (USA Today, Gallup, April 2007)	S.J.Res.14	25%	48%
Unionization (Employee Free Choice Act) (Gallup, August 2006)	H.R. 800	59%	29%

The Filibuster Flip-Flop

Kaizad Bhabha — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:24:44 -0800

"You know that every measure, virtually every measure with any degree of controversy about it in the United States Senate requires 60 votes. That's the ordinary procedure, not the unusual."

—Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, CNN "Late Edition," January 14, 2007

FALSE! We've crunched the numbers. The reality is the current pattern of Republican obstruction—requiring 60 votes to bring any major legislation to the Senate floor for a vote—is unprecedented. Senate Republicans are on a pace to filibuster almost three times more often than the Democrats did as the minority party in the 109th Congress (2005-2006).

Research by McClatchy Newspapers' Washington Bureau also reveals that the Republicans' routine use of the filibuster is far from ordinary in Senate history.

But what about Democratic filibusters against Bush judicial nominees? The truth is Republicans blocked more of President Clinton's judicial nominees than Democrats have of President Bush's. Get the facts.

When Democrats were more selectively using the filibuster while Republicans controlled the Senate, Misssissippi Sen. Trent Lott was quoted in 2003 as saying, "'[Filibustering] is wrong. ... And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow this place up. No problem." (The Clarion-Ledger, May 23, 2003)

But now that his party is in the minority, Lott says: "'The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far, it's working for us.'" (Roll Call, April 18, 2007)

Here's other statements by Republicans about the Democrats' use of the filibuster:

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (as Majority Whip through 2006)

"[If the] Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote."
Laurie Kellman. "Democrats Warned Not to Block Bush's Judicial Nominees." San Diego Union-Tribune. 17 November 2006..

"This kind of sort of random selection of people to be denied an up-or-down vote, it seems to all of us, is not an appropriate way to end the controversy."
News Hour with Jim Lehrer "Judicial Wars." PBS. 13 May 2005.

"[If the] Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote."
Laurie Kellman. "Democrats Warned Not to Block Judges." San Francisco Chronicle. 17 November 2006.

"Like the three presidents before him, President Bush will spend his last two years in office with the opposition party in control of the Senate. Like them, he has a right to expect that his nominees will receive an up or down vote."
Mitch McConnell. "Prepared Remarks of U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell." 4 January 2007.

Senator Bill Frist, R-Tenn. (Senate Majority Leader through 2006)

"In other words, I have sought to address Democrats' grievances while holding true to the core principle of an up-or-down vote. So far, my Democrat colleagues have rejected all efforts at compromise, and continue to insist on a new, 60-vote standard. Such a position is unacceptable."
"It's Time for an Up or Down Vote." USA Today.com. 15 May 2005.

"One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end … [This use of filibusters is a] formula for tyranny by the minority."
(Source: Helen Dewar and Mike Allen. "GOP May Target Use of Filibuster." 13 December 2004.

"Republicans believe in the regular order of fair up-and-down votes and letting the Senate decide yes or no on judicial confirmations free from procedural gimmicks like the filibuster, and I hope Senator Reid and others know our door is always open to reasonable proposals for fair up or down votes for judicial nominees."
Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz. "Democrats, GOP Ends Talk on Filibusters." 17 May 2005.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah

"Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a modern-day filibuster prevents an up-or-down vote on a nomination unless cloture is invoked. Under the present application of the rule, a vote of 60 Senators is required to end debate by invoking cloture. What makes the filibusters of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen so outrageous is that the Senators perpetuating this obstructionist ploy aren't demanding the opportunity for extended debate. There is no dispute that there has been plenty of debate on these nominations. Everyone has had an opportunity to be heard, and all the issues have been repeatedly scrutinized."
Orrin Hatch. "Statement of the Honorable Orrin Hatch United States Senator Utah." United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 6 May 2003.

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.

"The United States Senate faces an unprecedented crisis brought on by the minority party. Judges who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the federal bench have been held up by a filibuster and cannot get a fair up-or-down vote. This unfair tactic is breaking years of Senate tradition. The issue of blatant obstructionism the Democrats are displaying should not be ignored anymore. I support a change in the rules of the Senate to allow for an up-or-down vote on judicial nominations. We must not let the minority party circumvent the Constitution, and take away the right of the President to have his judicial nominees voted on by a simple up-or-down vote."
Jim Bunning. "The Duty to Vote Up-or-Down." 29 August 2005.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C.

"Mr. President, when the Constitution was drafted so many years ago, it outlined a process by which the President of the United States would nominate judges with the 'advice and consent' of the U.S. Senate. The filibuster expands the Senate's advice and consent role in nominations well beyond what the Constitution envisioned. And for too long, politics has prevented the Senate from doing its constitutional duty."
Elizabeth Dole. "Senator Dole Calls For 'Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominations." 13 November 2003.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.

"Yet for the past two years, the Senate has failed to carry out this duty because the minority party has filibustered several of President Bush's judicial nominees. The minority has blocked the majority from having an up-or-down vote. Not only does the Constitution require an up-or-down vote, denial of an up-or-down vote goes against basic principles of fairness; it also is unprecedented in Senate history."
Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss. "Filibusters Obstruct the Senate's Duty." 24 May 2005. The Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman

"All judges deserve an up-or-down vote. This simple point is our best argument because it is consistent with fundamental fairness. Any way you ask the question, overwhelming majorities of Americans believe all judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate, especially when they have majority support. As we discuss this issue, focusing on the fundamental fairness of an up-or-down vote for all nominees resonates strongly with the American people."
Ken Mehlman. "RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman Memo: Public Opinion on Judicial Appointments." Republican National Committee. 26 April 2005.

Block-and-Blame GOP Stymies Progress

Isaiah J. Poole — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:00:01 -0800

The Republican obstruction strategy in Congress reached a new milestone on December 18 when the Senate held its 62nd cloture vote in response to a filibuster, the most in recent history.

Our year-end review shows how a deliberate conservative strategy to routinely filibuster bills, coupled with White House veto threats, has led to record-breaking legislative paralysis on Capitol Hill.

Read the report | Read the press release
Bill Scher: How Obstruction Hurts You | Digby: Why They Do It
Obstruction special section