Tag: United States House Committee on Rules

Our Political Fights Are Intense Because We No Longer Agree on the Rules Matthew Walther, writing about Julian Assange in The Week, lists how many Democrats and Republicans changed their minds about Assange depending upon whose secrets he was exposing and concludes: [if Assange exposes Trump’s secrets], we can expect to see both sides revert once more to their circa 2010 defaults. One of the reasons our politics is so contentious and angry is that we can’t agree on what the rules are. But a vocal chunk of Americans don’t really care about what the policies are; they would much rather argue that their side is right. For many people, it depends upon the partisan status of the person accused. For many Americans, when the side they like uses heated rhetoric, it’s speaking truth to power. Is the desire to make more money inherently greedy? For years, the mantra of Bernie Sanders was that the wealthy were driven by an intensely selfish desire: “How many yachts do billionaires need? Boy, Joe Biden’s efforts in the fight about forced busing and desegregation sure are getting a lot of attention these days, aren’t they? At the time, the motivation for spotlighting the teens was clear: to disagree with their often-heated and sometimes factually wrong assertions about gun violence amounted to “attacking children” in the eyes of their pro-gun control allies. Say, who’s the president married to again?

Gary Rose, a professor of politics at Sacred Heart University, sees a danger in weakening filibuster and cloture rules that historically provided a brake on the legislative process that allows the minority party an opportunity to be heard. “The whole purpose of the filibuster was to prevent a stampede.” The Senate voted largely along party lines to reduce, from 30 hours to 2 hours, the time allowed for debate when cloture is invoked on most presidential nominees. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sought the change to speed the confirmation process complaining that Democrats were abusing the rule to deny President Donald Trump his nominees. Elliot Mincberg, a senior fellow at People for the American Way, points out that senators have changed their mind on nominees during the 30-hour debate time that Republicans voted to eliminate. “You are seeing now with this repeated (erosion of rules) no desire to adjudicate or debate.” Senate’s Rule 22, which was adopted in 1917, required a two-thirds majority vote to invoke cloture — setting a time limit on further debate on the issue before the Senate. Initially, there were 100 hours of debate allowed — enough time for each senator to have an hour of time to speak. In 1975, the Senate changed the rule to reduce from 66 votes to 60 votes the majority needed to invoke cloture and in 1985 it reduced from 100 hours to 30 hours the post-cloture debate time. “In the face of a threatened filibuster, for example, the majority leader may decide not to call a bill up for floor consideration or may defer calling it up if there are other, equally important bills the Senate can consider and pass with less delay. Similarly, the prospect of a filibuster can persuade a bill’s proponents to accept changes in the bill that they do not support but that are necessary to prevent an actual filibuster,” CRS writes. When Senate Republicans returned to the majority with President Donald Trump in office, they changed the rule to require a simple majority for Supreme Court nominees — allowing for Neil M. Gorsuch’s confirmation.