Ezra Klein explains a Senate "hold"
Good explanation by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post:
The news of the day, as I mentioned earlier, is that Richard Shelby has decided to place a hold on everything that eats, breathes or moves unless Alabama gets a couple billion more in pork. Before we take a step further on this, it’s worth noting that Shelby is doing exactly what Ben Nelson did, but attaching a larger price tag to his demands: He’s threatening to obstruct Senate business unless his state gets billions in giveaways. Nelson settled for hundreds of millions. Nebraskans must be pissed.
But put all that aside: Shelby is putting a "hold" on all of Barack Obama’s pending nominees. So, uh, what’s a hold?
The first thing to understand is that there’s no such procedural move as a "hold." It’s not something senators have in their special senatorial utility belts. Instead, a "hold" is shorthand for a promise to obstruct all further consideration of a particular piece of Senate business.
The best explanation of how this works came from David Waldman, and I encourage you to read it in full. But here’s the short version: The Senate generally uses unanimous consent agreements to set the rules for a bill or a nomination. A hold, in its simplest form, is a promise to object to unanimous consent.
Okay, then what?
The action in question can still come to the floor. But all bets are off. In practice, this means a filibuster of some sort is on. Let’s say that Shelby doesn’t have 40 other Republicans lined up to stop all Senate business unless Alabama gets its pork. In theory, that means Harry Reid can just call a cloture vote and break his filibuster. Problem solved, right?
Sort of. People think of the filibuster in terms of defeating a bill. But they don’t think about the power it has to keep the Senate from doing anything else. But that’s the power the hold uses. To break a filibuster, the majority leader has to file for cloture. Then there’s a two-day waiting period before a vote. Then there’s a 30-hour post-vote debate period. And voting on one bill might require breaking multiple filibusters, because the motion to proceed to debate can be filibustered and the amendments can be filibustered and the motion to vote can be filibustered and each filibuster requires the same lengthy workaround. Even if you can crush every one of these filibusters without breaking a sweat, you’ve still just seen a whole week — or maybe much more — of the Senate’s time chewed up.
That’s why holds are effective on bills and nominations that people don’t care about: The majority doesn’t want to waste that much time breaking the obstruction of the minority…
Why so many people think this is about earmarks eludes me. This is total political warfare between the elected GOP officholders and the Democratic officeholders. The days of bipartisan anything are over. Raw power and effective propaganda are the present coin of the realm. From this point forward, there will be no progress in any direction until one or the other party takes absolute control. When we tolerated the verbal abuse of a sitting war-time president, in front of the entire world, our fate was sealed. Patriotism is dead and America will be unrecognizable in two generations. This single unconfronted act marks the birth of the next American civil war.
Robert Kmett
5 February 2010 at 2:56 pm
Well, I don’t think patriotism is dead yet, though of course yours may be. And we’ve ALWAYS tolerated abuse of war-time presidents, up to and including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt—come to think of it, Harry S Truman came in for some abuse during his tenure as well, despite the Korean War in progress.
Bush was excoriated for his (many, grievous) faults. He was a president in name only, and his tenure is probably unmatched in corruption and damage to America—well, there was U.S. Grant, of course. But in modern times, the Cheney-Bush act did more damage to the US than any president in my experience, and I think it is a good sign and some people spoke up.
LeisureGuy
5 February 2010 at 3:54 pm
Oh, and the reason people think Shelby’s blanket hold is about earmarks is because he said if he got his two earmarks he would release the hold. But I agree that in general the GOP is simply determined to make the Obama Administration fail regardless of the damage to the country (and regardless of the fact that Obama is a “wartime president”).
LeisureGuy
5 February 2010 at 3:57 pm
I don’t quite get the “President in name only” reference. Unless you’re implying someone else was pulling his strings, that is. I agree as to the damage that he and his henchmen accomplished. You and I, obviously, have different perspectives as to whether patriotism is dead or possibly what a reasonable definition is. My perspective includes what damage the GOP has done over the last ten years or so, the ongoing onslaught against the all of the legally elected democrats in government and the extremely effective propaganda machine that has been unleashed on the public in general. Patriots of any stripe always put country first. These people have demonstrated that America is somewhere in the far distance after cash, power and status. In that order. This will, naturally, eventually create conditions where civil war is inevitable. My guess is still two generations from now.
Robert Kmett
5 February 2010 at 4:25 pm
I think Cheney exercised too much influence on Bush in Bush’s first term. Moreover, Bush did not exercise leadership and good management of his subordinates.
I agree that the GOP is moving in a very dangerous direction—one thinks of the Brown Shirts and the bullying and thuggery that ushered in an authoritarian regime. And there is no doubt that the GOP is authoritarian in the extreme these days: that’s how they exercise so much control on their members in the House and Senate.
I don’t think they will raise a sufficient number with a stomach to fight (the GOP politicians are in general famous for avoiding serving in the military), but they certainly have done quite serious and perhaps irreversible damage to the structure of government. I think, given the state of the world, that it’s more likely that the US will enter a period of decline than it will have another civil war. Other nations seem to be moving ahead in quite a few areas.
I feel quite fortunate to have lived during the period of my lifetime.
LeisureGuy
5 February 2010 at 5:19 pm
Ezra Klein is consistently interesting for his wonkish approach. I read him regularly.
I point out to Mr. Kmett that our previous “wartime president” became one by his own choice. It is obvious, though, that he decided to fight the wrong war. The Republicans seem to me determined to continue his policies, which the current administration has not stepped away from as much as I might like.
If John McCain had become president with a Republican majority in both houses, I wonder what would have happened.
bill bush
6 February 2010 at 11:11 am
Man! That’s something to chew on. How about this scenario? The Democrat controlled congress opposes McCain at every turn. This causes the Republicans to regain control of both the House and Senate in November. McCain privatizees Social Security and Medicare. Sarah Palin writes a book, resigns and goes on tour. All of the legal protections under Tort law are removed. Rush Lumbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, etc are all awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, there is a terrorist attack somewhere on U.S. territory and McCain invades Syria in response. The press secretary position is elevated to cabinet status. Medal of Freedom honoree, Glen Beck, is appointed to the new position. Tickets to White House press briefings are limited to Fox News Reporters. Bowing to Rush Limbaugh’s demand, McCain invites Sarah Palin back to rejoin him on the ticket for the 2015 GOP convention. She and McCain are easily reelected in a wave of media generated patriotic hype. The Supreme court declares the constitutional mandate on term limits of the presidency to be unconstitutional. Sarah Palin writes another book and resigns to go on tour. Democrats in congress are required to sign loyalty oaths. They are susequently purged, by the President, citing war-time powers, in a special joint session of Congress called by the President. The Supreme Court upholds his action 5 -4. McCain has a heart attack and passes. Speaker of the House Rupert Murdoch ascends to the Presidency. Since America now occupies three other sovereign nations, a congressional bill is introduced to change the title of President to Emperor. President Murdoch demures but is reluctantly forced to accept the new title. The Supreme Court upholds the new law, 5-4. Public debt reaches. $100 trillion and every citizen must carry an employee ID card written in Chinese and English.
Robert Kmett
7 February 2010 at 9:50 am
@Kmett
That scenario, after the first read, is both humorous and slightly frightening. After the second read though, a daunting realization that we were very close to at least half of that happening consumed me and I nearly shat myself.
In response to the original entry, this act of defiance by Shelby is absolutely disgusting. It is treason in it’s finest form. Exactly one day after the Democrats lose their super-majority and then this shit happens. It’s unacceptable from a U.S. Senator. It is blatant bribery and despicable. God help this country if this is what it’s come to.
Framerz J
5 March 2010 at 1:02 am