Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 4, 2010

BRING ON THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS.... During the Bush/Cheney era, the White House would routinely nominate unqualified political hacks to key government posts, prompting Senate Democrats to block some of the worst of the bunch. The White House, in turn, would routinely circumvent Congress and fill the vacancies anyway, through "recess appointments."

A president has the authority to appoint officials -- on a temporary basis -- to fill government vacancies when Congress is not in session. Bush took this power to new heights (or depths, as the case may be) to the great consternation of Democrats.

President Obama hasn't had to bother with recess appointments, probably because his party has a huge majority in the Senate. But in about two hours, the Republican caucus will go from 40 members to 41, and the Senate's ability to confirm nominees will come to an abrupt halt.

Which makes the prospect of recess appointments increasingly likely.

Democrats are mulling the use of recess appointments to overcome the Senate GOP's newfound ability to block Obama administration appointments to judicial and regulatory posts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said Thursday he may be forced to support the hardball tactic unless some of the chamber's Republicans consent and let nominees through. Once Republican Scott P. Brown of Massachusetts is sworn in at 5 p.m. Thursday, the minority will have 41 votes -- enough to sustain a filibuster.

"What alternative do we have? What alternative do we have?" Reid asked.

The key downside of these appointments -- irrespective of political comity -- is that those installed by the president can only serve a year or two (it depends on the post) without congressional confirmation.

But if Senate Republicans are simply unwilling to let the chamber vote on the administration's nominees, the White House has a straightforward choice: allow posts to remain vacant indefinitely in the face of unprecedented obstructionism or start embracing recess appointments.

In the interest of fairness and intellectual consistency, I should note that I'm not a big fan of this tactic.

Article II, Sec. 2, of the Constitution says, "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session." Note that it says, "the recess," not "a recess."

In the early days of the country, framers saw recesses that could last months and wanted presidents to be able to fill key positions temporarily in emergency situations without the Senate's "advice and consent." There's a lengthy break following the final adjournment for the legislative session. This is "the recess." The provision was not about giving presidents the authority to circumvent Congress when the White House felt like it.

In the modern understanding, though, any recess is an opportunity for a president to start filling vacancies with appointed officials. If lawmakers head out of town for a President's Day Recess, as they will in a couple of weeks, Obama can conceivably start making these appointments to his heart's content.

If I had to guess, I'd say the president isn't crazy about this option, either, which is why he hasn't taken advantage of it to date. He was a constitutional law professor; he knows the recess appointment option isn't supposed to be used this way.

But Senate Republicans are simply out of control, and are deliberately undercutting the political process in ways that threaten to permanently undermine the institution. If they oppose the president's nominees for various posts, they're welcome to vote against them. But the GOP has decided to simply not allow votes, and there's no reason for the White House to tolerate this.

If we're being honest about this, do I think using the recess power for routine, non-emergencies constitutes abuse of the option? Yes, it probably is. But the far more offensive abuse is Senate Republicans not letting the chamber vote on these nominees in the first place.

Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

i'm all for the recession appointments -- PEOPLE NEED JOBS!!1! HIRE 'EM

HIRE 7 MILLION... get the Repugnants to fire 'em.

Posted by: neill on February 4, 2010 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

I'd make the recess appointments "with great regret" and promise the send every recess-appointed nominee up for Senate confirmation provided they would get an up or down vote.

"If you're not even going to give them the courtesy of voting on them, I'm going to have to do what I gotta do to keep the country running"

Posted by: Z. Mulls on February 4, 2010 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

This question's probably been addressed, but why do the Democrats yield to the threat of filibuster? Why don't they insist that the Republicans make good on the threat? Then we'd see on CSPAN this or that Republican senator talking for hours and hours (or reading aloud from War and Peace) simply to scuttle a vote on a comparatively minor appointee.

Posted by: David on February 4, 2010 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure the Republicans share your serious concern for the constitution.

Posted by: inkadu on February 4, 2010 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

whatever happened to the Repub's favorite phrase from a few years ago - "Up or Down Vote"?

Posted by: David Jahns on February 4, 2010 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

David, I agree. Yet, I recall that if Sen. Reid would pursue that course - that all other business (what little is occurring) will stop while the filibuster runs.

Sen. Reid is following one set of standards - the sad expectation that he's working with grown-ups; greater good of the country.

Posted by: sduffys on February 4, 2010 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

"SCOTT BROWN TO BE SWORN IN EARLY"

The Republicans are eager to have their 41st Senator take his place. They said privately that seating Brown earlier could help them block Democratic nominees opposed by the GOP, specifically Craig Becker, whom President Obama has nominated to join the five-member National Labor Relations Board. It gives them enough votes to filibuster any nominee -- and they've shown a willingness to filibuster any nominee.

I say let them filibuster, actually filibuster, Becker's nomination. Think of the picture - Republicans droning on and on, holding up Senate business, in order to keep a labor representative from serving on the National Labor Relations Board.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

Posted by: altara on February 4, 2010 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Before Obama does this, there has to be a PR campaign of the sort that the Republicans waged over judges. I absolutely cannot understand why the Democrats seem to ignore the necessity for such steps. If, in the face of a press conference every day by a chairman of the Senate and house committee in charge the area in which an appointee would serve, demanding an "up or down vote," the Republicans still refuse, then even the less well informed will probably have learned what's at stake. And Obama will get a pass. Otherwise all hell will break loose -- against Obama.

Posted by: David in NY on February 4, 2010 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

"...But the far more offensive abuse is Senate Republicans not letting the chamber vote on these nominees in the first place."-Benen

It's not just one or two being blocked from a vote ...it's virtually all of them. The senate was never intended to operate in this fashion where the entire administration is prevented from being implemented solely for political gain.

Republican senators are operating by this meme:

"We disagree with democrats because they are democrats and will block everything that helps the democrats"

Obama is completely justified in making a number of recess appointments which he knows would clearly pass the senate if the senate were 'allowed' to vote on the nominee. Blocking anything which would pass if allowed to be voted on is nothing but obstructionism where legislation is held hostage by a handful of senators.

Posted by: bjobotts on February 4, 2010 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Steve you talk out of both sides of your ass.

"do I think using the recess power for routine, non-emergencies constitutes abuse of the option? Yes, it probably is. But the far more offensive abuse is Senate Republicans not letting the chamber vote on these nominees in the first place"

Is it only offensive for Senate Republicans to deny the chamber vote? When the shoe was on the other foot your song was much different.

Posted by: JNJ on February 4, 2010 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

I gather they don't require old fashioned actual filibusters because they it would bring the business of the Senate to a total halt. And this may be true, and a reason for not doing it. But if the Senate can't do it business ...?

Posted by: David in NY on February 4, 2010 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Yes David, a PR campaign is key, and also only recess-appoint nominees that get a majority in the procedural vote, with advance notice that via this tactic the procedural vote is going to be interpreted as the "confirmation" vote. That enables the "majority rules" message to build momentum for Senate rules reform.

Posted by: ElegantFowl on February 4, 2010 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

JNJ -- this is different. These nominees will be confirmed easily once there's a vote. In Bush's case, his nominees would not have been confirmed. Get it. In the first case you're furthering democracy, not thwarting it.

Talk about talking out your ass.

Posted by: David in NY on February 4, 2010 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

See, JNJ, ElegantFowl has even developed a measure of whether a recess appointment is furthering democracy or not.

I like it.

Posted by: David in NY on February 4, 2010 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, old-fashioned filibusters obstruct all Senate business. So use that to explain why the Senate has to recess for a few days, and make the recess appointments. "Republicans shut down the Senate... Senate needs a timeout... Essential appointments made via "majority rules". Wash, rinse, repeat until the next Senate convenes to adopt new rules.

Posted by: ElegantFowl on February 4, 2010 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Given that Reid is being conciliatory by agreeing to seat Brown earlier than even HE wanted, and after the State of the Union, and all the pleas for the Repubs to work with the Democrats, if Brown's VERY FIRST vote is to support a filibuster (after his claiming he was going to be an "independent" Repub), then that vote should be hung around his neck like a TonTon Macoute necklace...

Posted by: artsmith on February 4, 2010 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Actual filibusters would bring the business of the Senate to a halt. What is the problem? The business of the Senate is to vote on legislation and approve appointments. The Republican policy of total obstructionism means the Senate isn't doing any business right now.

Exactly how does requiring an actual filibuster halt something that isn't happening?

As to Harry Reid's question, "what can I do?" how about the nuclear option?

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 4, 2010 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

David asks:
This question's probably been addressed, but why do the Democrats yield to the threat of filibuster? Why don't they insist that the Republicans make good on the threat?

As I understand it, at any time a Senator can "suggest the absence of a quorum" at which time the clerk calls the roll. If a quorum is not present, the Senate would be adjourned and once it's called back into session the filibuster is still operative.

So basically, while one Republican is talking, almost all the Democrats would have to stay where they can get to the Senate chamber within a few minutes as long as the filibuster is happening, or everyone can go home with nothing resolved. The Democrats aren't willing to inconvenience themselves that much.

Posted by: SteveT on February 4, 2010 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Y'know, a great big bunch of filibusters could be a good thing. In order to maintain the filibuster, these damnably-damnable Republikanner beasties would have to park themselves in chamber for who knows how long---thus depriving them the opportunity to visit their favorite spew-flinging outlet (Foxnoise).

No teabagger townhalls.

No going home on the weekends to campaign.

No policy meetings down the road at "the Family" headquarters.

No extended sessions with lobbyists.

So what if we don't have 60 votes? Just keep calling for points of order and surrender of the floor, and the GOPer swine would have to continue their filibuster ad nauseum....

Posted by: S. Waybright on February 4, 2010 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, you write "President Obama hasn't had to bother with recess appointments, probably because his party has a huge majority in the Senate."

What about Dawn Johnsen? Wasn't she due for a recess appointment a LONG time ago?

Posted by: American in Exile on February 4, 2010 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Alas, since the reforms of the 1970s, filibuster rules have changed so that the Republicans would not be droning on for hours.

What the Democrats need is a political strategy that allows them to advance good policy by taking advantage of the process available to them under the current Senate rules.

Steve, I don't know if any of your Capitol Hill readers/sources could weigh in with suggestions as to what might work.

Here's an idea: After passing health care reform (and possibly a jobs bill), schedule votes on all the nominees (or selected nominees) currently being held by the Republicans. Call for an "up or down vote" on each nominee. Blame the Senate Republicans for, if not shutting down the federal government as Gingrich did in the 1990s, at least obstructing the ability of the executive branch to do the people's work.

Senate procedural experts: would this work? Why or why not?

Posted by: massappeal on February 4, 2010 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Dave: Why don't they insist that the Republicans make good on the threat? Then we'd see on CSPAN this or that Republican senator talking for hours and hours (or reading aloud from War and Peace) simply to scuttle a vote on a comparatively minor appointee.

Does anybody know the answer to this question? It seems a winning strategy for the Dems, at least to me.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on February 4, 2010 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Dave & MatthewRMarler, the more you see the Republicans on TV holding up the business of governing, the better. Bring these little toads out into the light of day and show them for what they are...and more, more, more Obama meetings with Republican congressmen on TV! They have to be shown up at every opportunity until they realize the American people won't stand for their shenanigans. It should have happened months ago.

Posted by: whichwitch on February 4, 2010 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Rules were changed so senators don't actually have to talk. This is so other business can get done while the bill being subjected to a cloture vote is stalled. No more mr smith goes to washington moments in the senate.

Posted by: richard wang on February 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans are paid to block bills and Democrats are paid to let them. That's how the corporate run government works.

Posted by: Dale on February 4, 2010 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

As I understand it, at any time a Senator can "suggest the absence of a quorum" at which time the clerk calls the roll. If a quorum is not present, the Senate would be adjourned and once it's called back into session the filibuster is still operative.


OK, so don't make the Dem's roll out the cots and have a speaker drone on all night. Just let them talk endlessly during the regular working day and/or let a quorum call fail and adjourn the Senate for the day. This will still show the voters that the Senate isn't getting anything done and just who's fault it is. Right now it just looks to most folks that the Dems have a majority but just can't DO ANYTHING. Can't the Dems show the real reason? Can anyone tell me why that won't work?

Posted by: cintibud on February 4, 2010 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Towards the end of Bush's regime, Dems circumvented his habit of recess appointments by keeping Senate open permanently (Jim Webb was there every day -- no recess). Unless Obama recess-appoints, in a *single day* all 177 (or whatever the number is now) of the stalled nominations, there's nothing to stop the Repubs from remembering that trick and preventing the next recess appt. They may not have thought of it all by themselves, but elephants are famous for their long memory.

Posted by: exlibra on February 4, 2010 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Richard Wang is right. The rules were changed. Those who would filibuster no longer have to camp out: it can be a lone Republican. But the Democrats would need to keep every member of the caucus (including the two Independents) there or face continuing quorum calls. Most people don't realize how the rules were changed and want to see Jimmy Stewart moments.

Posted by: nj progressive on February 4, 2010 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Rules were changed so senators don't actually have to talk. This is so other business can get done while the bill being subjected to a cloture vote is stalled


A reasonable rule for reasonable times...that are long gone. That rule needs to be changed/ignored in unreasonable times. Heck, all times. If all work stopped there would be a lot fewer filibusters.

Posted by: cintibud on February 4, 2010 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

I share your frustration cintibud. To the average American it looks as if it's the Democrats that can't get anything done. That's one reason, and perhaps the main reason, why people are willing to vote them out. So what can be done to change this perception? And get government working again?

Posted by: whichwitch on February 4, 2010 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

What is going on in our Congress right now is a Constitutional crisis. The Republicans are not merely opposing Democratic proposals and they aren't merely stalling them, they are in fact shutting down the elected government. This is a soft coup. We need to get the message more clearly out that this is a Constitutional crisis, that it is in fact a threat to our democracy, and for the President and Congressional leaders to put together a strategy to deal with it.

Posted by: Nothing But the Ruth on February 4, 2010 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

If I remember correctly from Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton, the president can't renominate the same person at the end of the recess appointment. Am I incorrect? It would be a shame to recess appoint some of these people for a few months - they wouldn't have any time to make an impact.

Posted by: ghillie on February 4, 2010 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

cintibud - an "adjournment" is not a "recess." Adjournment is COB for the day. Recess is on leave. Senator Webb was given the power to call the Senate into session, which he did, once a day, so the Senate would not be on recess.

Posted by: ghillie on February 4, 2010 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

And the most outrageous Bush recess appointment of all was John Bolton to the UN, for two reasons.

First, the appointment was not made to overcome some "hold" by an individual senator who happened to hate bushy mustaches or something. Bush appointed Bolton to the UN after the Senate had REJECTED the nomination.

Second, the Bolton outrage puts the lie to the faux-scandal that FOX has made over all the presidential advisors -- the "czars" -- appointed without Senate confirmation. When Bush stuck a finger in the eye of Senate and appointed Bolton over its objection, FOX cheered. But somehow FOX thinks that any Obama appointment that does not subject itself to a GOP Senate filibuster is a threat to the Republic.

Posted by: Ted Frier on February 4, 2010 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

The key downside of these appointments -- irrespective of political comity -- is that those installed by the president can only serve a year or two (it depends on the post) without congressional confirmation.

Guess what? The vast majority of Presidential appointments only serve a year or two even with congressional confirmation.

Posted by: aline on February 4, 2010 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

"What alternative do we have?" Senate Majority Leader Reid quuoted by Steve Benen.

No more holds. From EITHER party. Announce that all holds are cancelled and the nominations will be brought to the floor.
Then let the Republicans filibuster EVERY nomination if they want - just ensure that the proceedings are televised. Show the country that the Republicans won't even allow a Senate vote. And be prepared to do that for as long as it takes. Sen. Reid would need to plan on allowing one month for this at a minimum. It certainly shouldn't take much more time than that, possibly less, before Republican poll numbers start declining even further.
Show, on television, all the Democratic Senators at their desks, waiting to get to work, but unable to. Show the entire Senate prevented from doing what they were elected to do, as one Republican after another stands there, doing everything in their power to PREVENT the Senate from doing the people's business. Show the country that it's not that the Republicans are voting against something, it's that they won't even allow a vote!
The most important element in this campaign would be the televising of the proceedings. It would permit the sidelining of the MSM's "X said/Y said" stenography and allow voters to see the Senate being held hostage by the Republicans. Remember, it's only among the most rabid of the base that tactics such as this will be applauded; the majority of independent and former Republican voters, not to mention Democratic voters, will be disgusted and, possibly, angry. In either case, they will most definitely NOT be supporting the Republicans.

Posted by: Doug on February 4, 2010 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Obama is close to acting as I would: require maximum congressional support for everything. If you veto everything, each house needs to muster 2/3 votes. Why not force each house to muster 2/3 votes to pass legislation?

Personally it makes no sense: the Senate requires 60%, the House 50%, but only if the president goes along.

Posted by: tomj on February 4, 2010 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

One of the foulest words I can think of these days is "comity" as it applies to the Senate.

R's don't give a damn about comity until they feel like their B.S. is being highlighted and then they start squealing that there isn't any.

And D's seem to love the word as if saying that comity exists somehow maintains a level of mutual respect and consideration while it just amounts to a "Kick Me" sign on all their asses.

Grover Norquist was, as always, crass and sleazy when he said "bipartisanship is date rape" but they are still playing by those rules and I don't believe that comity and date rape have ever been that compatible.

In one respect the R's win either way. If recess appt's are done, the rules of doing political business in this country fray a little more as extreme measures are once again used to accomplish basic business. They want the U.S. gov't to fail and fall and this sort of crap hastens that process.

And if recess appt's aren't done, then Obama's people stay out and Obama's ability to put his stamp on his tenure is further diminished. And R's look strong even though they are being destructive.

Heads they win. Tails we lose. Business as usual.

Posted by: burro on February 4, 2010 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats in office should start yelling "UP OR DOWN VOTE" every chance they get. And when the Republicants complain, name the names of those republicants that yelled when they were in the majority.

Posted by: wbn on February 4, 2010 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

A question about procedure. If a person is appointed during a recess, then it seems that their term lasts only until the next Congress or the next elections. At that point, does filibustering come into play again or not? In other words, once they're appointed, is the next Congress obligated to vote up or down, or can they then filibuster again?

Posted by: Texas Aggie on February 5, 2010 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

How about, oh, I don't know, changing the fricking fillibuster rule.

The fillibuster is not constitutional in of itself, it only stems from the line allowing each body of congress to establish its own rules.

So change the rules. 50 votes is all you need Mr. Majority Leader.

I think it is quite obvious that the current situation must suit these DINO's just fine, or else they would have changed it.

Posted by: Dazir on February 5, 2010 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK

Use the recess appointments for everyone including the TSA candidate who stepped down so he could run his LA department. the Republicans deserve this. Let's hope that the republicans go home President's weekend.Obama uses the recess appointments and then gets up and down votes., that wil stop the filibuster. Let America move on not remain in status quo.

Posted by: MLJohnston on February 5, 2010 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

First, Obama holds a prime time news conference, fully armed with the facts (ie, a complete rundown of every hold since the beginning of 2009 (with names where available), and he ensures that a question is asked (Helen Thomas ?), that he read the entire list to completion. Then He announces that the republicans have two weeks to get every nominee on hold more than two months to a vote, failing which every nominee will be recess appointed. Any when these recess appointments expire, the same people will be recess appointed again, until the republican party decides to change the way they do business.

Posted by: rbe1 on February 5, 2010 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

With so much talk of Jimmy Stewart style filibusters, I present a classic post by Hilzoy pointing out the self-inflicted wounds Democrats they could cause:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016905.php

February 15, 2009
By: Hilzoy

Filibusters Again

Steve, Matt Yglesias, and Kevin Drum are all calling for reform of the filibuster. I agree. I am of two minds on the question of eliminating it entirely. (To anyone who thinks it's just obvious that the filibuster should be eliminated, I have three words for you: Janice Rogers Brown.) But what seems absolutely clear is that if it is kept around, it ought to be transformed back into a tool that is actually painful for the minority to use, and that they will therefore use only when they feel very, very strongly. As Kevin wrote:

"The filibuster was never intended to become a routine requirement that all legislation needs 60% of the vote in the Senate to pass. But that's what it's become. It's time for reform."


I don't think it's enough, though, to say that Senators who want to filibuster should be made to actually stand up and speak for hours on end. To see why, consider this:

"While a filibuster would seem to be more taxing on the side doing the talking, that isn't necessarily the case. The filibusterers need only one person in the Senate chamber at any one time, prattling away. The other side must make sure a quorum -- a majority of all senators -- is on hand, a constitutional requirement for the Senate to conduct business. If there's no quorum after a senator has demanded a quorum call, the Senate must adjourn, giving those leading the filibuster time to go home, sleep, and delay things even more. To ensure a quorum during the rancorous civil rights filibusters, cots were set up in Senate anterooms, and majority senators presented themselves in bathrobes during early-morning quorum calls.

Those seeking a quorum can even demand that the Senate's sergeant at arms arrest senators who aren't present and drag them into the Senate chamber, a measure that has led to absent senators playing hide-and-seek with police officers around Capitol Hill. As recently as 1988, officers physically carried Sen. Robert Packwood onto the Senate floor at the behest of then-Majority Leader Byrd."

This means that the pain of filibusters falls disproportionately on the side that is trying to end debate, not on the side that is mounting the filibuster. Senators do not like to hang around the Senate all night long. Sometimes, they would rather catch up on their sleep, go to fundraisers, fly back to their districts, or do whatever else they feel like doing. As things stand now, only one Senator from the side mounting a filibuster has to give up the rest of his or her life in order to be present in the Senate. The rest of them can just catch up on their beauty sleep. The side that is trying to end the filibuster, by contrast, has to keep almost all its members around in case of quorum calls.

If we're going to reform the filibuster, this has to change. The Senate might make cloture votes require 60% of the votes of those who are present and voting, for instance. That would mean that the side that was mounting a filibuster would have to keep all its members around for the duration. Alternately, the Senate might adopt a rule that said that during filibusters, if a quorum was not present, the Senator who was speaking could decide to go on speaking or to allow a vote on cloture, to be decided by a majority of those present and voting. If s/he decided to go on speaking, s/he could do so, but no other Senate business could be conducted until the next business day. If s/he opted for the cloture vote, it would take place.

There might, for all I know, be problems with either of these proposals. And there's probably an even better proposal out there. But what has to change, I think, is the fact that Senators can now declare their intention to filibuster and either have their way (if no one forces an actual filibuster), or visit considerable inconvenience on their opponents (if a filibuster is forced), without having to suffer the same inconveniences themselves.

That's an incredibly perverse set of incentives. It might have been designed to create the idiotic situation we have now, in which a party that has seventeen fewer Senators than the other is nonetheless in a position to dictate what the majority party can pass, not just on issues on which they feel very strongly, but as a matter of course.
—Hilzoy 1:43 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on February 5, 2010 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly