What is an obstruction: all you need to know about Senate rules

Over a hundred years under construction, the effort will be replete with histrionic warnings about the tyranny of the majority government.

The US Chamber of Commerce kicked off on Friday, with Executive Vice President Neil Bradley telling CNN Business reporter Matt Egan that ending the obstruction “would fundamentally destroy the stability of the American legal and political apparatus.”

The Senate was designed to work with absolute majority votes in order to generate a compromise. Instead, the system created paralysis. This is a world where three-fifths is the only significant majority, “debate” is a code for backwardness and party loyalty has surpassed the greater good.

Democrats put the obstruction on the spot. This is where it comes from

To understand what’s going on, you’ll have to learn the special pre-modern language of “obstruction” and “obstruction”, disconcerting math and maddening rules like “Rule XXII” that govern Senate procedures and confuse common sense.

Here’s what you need to know:

What is the obstruction?

According to the Senate website – which has its own glossary – an obstructionism is as follows: “An informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter, debating at length, offering numerous procedural motions, for any other delaying or obstructive actions. “

Nowadays, it is an abbreviation for any time when senators demand a supermajority to interrupt the debate and move on to a real vote on just about anything.

What would ending the obstruction do?

When people talk about ending the obstruction, what they really mean is to reinterpret the Senate’s rules on coagulation so that the legislation could be passed by a simple majority instead of being retained by a minority.

Do Democrats have enough support to end the obstruction?

Not yet. While top Democrats like Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois are behind the effort, and progressives like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have been pushing him for years, moderates like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia are not. Since Democrats have only 50 votes now, they each need to be on board to change Senate rules – and they may change again in the future.

What about Biden?

He was a senator for decades and respects the institution, but now he is a president trying to make things happen. Biden told George Stephanopoulos of ABC that he would like to be a “talking obstructionist” again.

“I don’t think you have to remove the obstruction, you have to do what it used to be when I arrived in the Senate in the old days,” he told Stephanopoulos. “You had to get up and command the ground, you had to keep talking.”

“So you are in favor of this reform? Are you about to bring back the talking obstructionist?” Stephanopulos asked.

“I am. This is what it should be,” said Biden, a la “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

What would Democrats do first if they ended the obstruction?

The first order of business would be its voting rights bill, S.1, which would neutralize the restrictions that Republicans are placing on postal and absentee voting, streamline the national electoral register, and end the party design of Congressional lines. .

Stacey Abrams argued that Democrats could get around the obstruction under this bill. But most people agree that once a party comes to the end of obstructing a bill, it will be hooked and will do it again and again.

What is clotting?

It is a funny spelling for the idea of closure, or to limit the debate about something. If all the senators do not agree to propose a vote on something – a bill, an appointment, almost anything – supporters must “invoke the clot”.

Here is the definition of the Senate glossary: ”The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to put a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter and thus overcome an obstruction. According to the clause rule (which is rule XXII), the Senate can limit consideration of a pending matter for an additional 30 hours, but only by a three-fifths vote in the Senate floor, usually 60 votes. “

Why are obstruction and coagulation incorporated into the Senate rules?

The unlimited debate over obstruction appears to be a kind of accident, according to some experts. Brookings colleague Molly Reynolds wrote that a provision that allows a simple majority to force votes like that used in the House of Representatives was removed on the advice of then Vice President Aaron Burr to simplify the rules, not to create an absolute majority test for all legislation.

Obstructors came to be used normally during the Civil War, causing headaches and slowing things down.

The clause was adopted around World War I as a brake on obstructors, when some senators delayed President Woodrow Wilson’s efforts during the war in Europe.

Have 60 votes or three fifths passed since then?

No. Originally, it was much more difficult to get two-thirds of the senators – 67 in the Senate today – to invoke coagulation and limit the debate. That’s why it took so long for senators to pass civil rights legislation. They further revised the coagulation rule in the late 1970s and mid-1980s. Seriously. The end of the obstruction takes 100 years to complete.

What was obstructionism used for?

The most famous obstructionist is the most disagreeable: Southern Democrats suspended civil rights legislation until 1964, when support was literally overwhelming.

Both sides were involved in obstructions. Why did President George W. Bush fail to conduct an immigration review? Obstruction. Why was President Barack Obama unable to enact climate change legislation? Obstruction. Why can’t Democrats pass a voting right bill today? Obstruction.

How often was coagulation used to bypass obstructors?

It used to be very rare. There were less than 10 coagulation motions filed in any year between the adoption of the practice in 1917 and 1969. There were less than 100 filed in any year between 1970 and 2006.

But now coagulation is necessary for almost everything. There were more than 300 clotting requests at the 2019 and 2020 Congress. This led to 298 clotting votes and the clot was invoked 270 times. Many of them were for judicial nominees while Republicans filled the courts with Trump nominees because of Democratic objections.

So, how many votes are coagulation votes today?

Senators voted 720 times in 2019 and 2020, according to Senate records. If 298 of those votes were coagulation votes, that means that about 41% of all votes that senators obtained at the last Congress were coagulation votes.

How would that process change?

There are two ways:

Change the rules of the Senate and, in particular, Rule XXII. But that requires two-thirds of the senators – again, 67 in the Senate today. This is simply not going to happen.
Change the Senate precedent. This is a cunning way to get around obstruction and clotting. Basically, a senator raises an objection to a coagulation rule, the chairman declares it out of order, and then a simple majority of senators vote to override their decision.

This second way to end the obstruction is known as the “nuclear option” because the idea is to blow up the Senate system.

Have senators used nuclear weapons before?

yea. Democrats did this to facilitate confirmation of President Barack Obama’s nominees for public service. Republicans did this to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominees to the Supreme Court. Supporters of the obstruction must want smallpox in both houses. Democrats first became nuclear, but, objectively, this happened after years of obstructing the Republican Party to everything Obama tried to do.

Did changing the precedent solve the problem?

Yes and no. Solved the problem of needing 60 votes to confirm the nominees. This also led to even more clotting records, creating a new problem in the Senate calendar. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer has filed for damages even against Biden’s non-controversial nominees.

How long does the clotting process take?

The coagulation process aims to limit the debate, but it takes days to be carried out. According to Senate rules, the signatures of 16 senators are required to coagulate, so there is an interim day and 30 hours of debate before senators can vote on the coagulation. Theoretically, it can take 15 days to reach a vote if all of the clotting time runs out, according to the Congressional Research Service. If Democrats reinterpret coagulation rules, it could mean even more clotting votes.

So, what will happen?

Senators know how to end the obstruction and the party obstruction is getting worse, not getting better, so it is only a matter of time before 50 senators agree to end this practice. Evidence: they ended up with the nominations. Will Democrats remove the obstruction to pass legislation this year? This is not yet known.

.Source