ABSTRACT: Judicial activism by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court was on display on June 25 when by a 5 to 4 vote the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was ruled outdated and unnecessary despite: 1) Previous Supreme Court rulings upholding the law including as recently as 2009; 2) Use of the Voting Rights Act 74 times since 2000 to protect voting rights; 3) Re-enactment by Congress in 2006 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes; and 4) Extensive efforts in many of the covered states (and others) in the 2012 elections to interfere with voting rights at levels unseen for almost 50 years. The dissenting justices issued a strong critique of the decision.

It seems ironic that the Supreme Court, charged with ensuring justice in our society, has overturned the VRA, whose goal is to ensure justice for minorities in exercising that bedrock building block of our democracy, the right to vote.

The evidence for the need for the VRA has been quick in coming. Within a month after the Supreme Court decision, six states have passed or are implementing new voting requirements that will make it harder to vote. Most observers agree these requirements will disproportionately effect and reduce voting by minorities, low income individuals, the elderly, and the young. Although voter fraud will be cited as the reason for these efforts, cases of fraud are incredibly rare.

I encourage you to let your representatives in Congress know that you are outraged and that they need to pass legislation to reinstate the VRA immediately.

FULL POST: Judicial activism by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court was on display on June 25 when by a 5 to 4 vote the Voting Rights Act (VRA) was ruled outdated and unnecessary despite:

• Previous Supreme Court rulings upholding the law including as recently as 2009
• Use of the Voting Rights Act 74 times since 2000 to protect voting rights
• Re-enactment by Congress in 2006 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes
• Extensive efforts in many of the covered states (and others) in the 2012 elections to interfere with voting rights at levels unseen for almost 50 years.

The Court’s majority felt that in the covered jurisdictions – nine states, mostly in the South, and numerous smaller jurisdictions including sections of New York City – barriers to voting for racial minorities were no longer sufficient to justify the law.

The Supreme Court not only ignored its own precedents, it ignored the clear will of Congress on a law that has been in place for 48 years. The reauthorization of the VRA in 2006 passed the House by a vote of 390 to 33 and the Senate unanimously, 98 to 0, before being signed into law by President George W. Bush. It seems ironic that the Supreme Court, charged with ensuring justice in our society, has overturned the VRA, whose goal is to ensure justice for minorities in exercising that bedrock building block of our democracy, the right to vote. The VRA was a key achievement of the Civil Rights movement and a key to implementing the post-Civil War 15^th Amendment, which prohibits denying the right to vote based on race.

The dissenting justices issued a strong critique of the decision, which Justice Ginsburg presented at the announcement of the ruling – an unusual event, indicating strong disagreement. She stated in part that the decision was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” [1]

The evidence for the need for the VRA has been quick in coming. Within a month after the Supreme Court decision, six states have passed or are implementing new voting requirements that will make it harder to vote. Most observers agree that these requirements will disproportionately effect and reduce voting by minorities, low income individuals, the elderly, and the young. Many, if not all, of these changes in voting laws would have been rejected by the US Justice Department under the VRA. Steps are being taken on the same path in other states. Although voter fraud will be cited as the reason for these efforts, cases of fraud are incredibly rare. [2]

North Carolina is poised to enact a requirement for an ID to vote, reductions in early voting, restrictions on voter registration, and increased opportunities to deny voters at the ballot box, among other provisions. This is a dramatic change for North Carolina, which, historically, has been a state where voting and registration were facilitated, and, where, as a result, voter participation has been high. The state’s own Secretary of State has acknowledged that the new laws will reduce voting by Blacks and Hispanics. [3] The new law will also increase campaign contribution limits, reduce disclosure of campaign activities, and repeal public financing for the election of judges, putting them and the state’s justice system at the mercy of large campaign contributions.

In Texas, a new voter ID law that was blocked by the Justice Department under the VRA will now go into effect. A revised map for election districts that had been blocked will now also go into effect. And in Florida, a purge of registered voters that had been blocked will now go forward, despite errors made in previous such purges. [4]

As a result of the Supreme Court decision, the Justice Department or individuals will now have to file lawsuits challenging changes in voting procedures after the fact on a case by case basis, a much less timely and efficient remedy than the pre-approval of changes previously required by the VRA.

The fact that this Supreme Court decision abets the active and growing efforts to throw up barriers to voting that will disenfranchise minorities and those with low incomes, groups that disproportionately vote for Democrats, makes it hard not to view the decision as ideological and political activism. The fact that it undermines the right to vote – the foundation of our democracy – in the face of clear attacks on that right makes it particularly egregious.

I encourage you to let your representatives in Congress know that you are outraged and that they need to pass legislation to reinstate the VRA immediately. I know that passage in this Congress, given the partisanship and obstructionism that I have written about, probably isn’t likely, but if no one tries it definitely won’t happen and this issue needs to be put on the agenda of our policy makers, the public, and the media.

ABSTRACT: While the use of the filibuster in the US Senate gets more attention, the obstructionism and extremism in the US House is more insidious. And it is no less harmful. One of the tactics in the House is the so-called “Hastert rule.” It stipulates that no piece of legislation will be voted on unless over half the members of the Republican majority support it. Therefore, 27% of the members of the House – barely over one quarter – can stop progress. The bipartisan immigration reform bill that the Senate passed is a current example of legislation that this conservative minority has blocked from consideration. It has meant that bipartisan compromises negotiated by the current Republican House Speaker John Boehner are rejected. Legislation that does pass the House is generally so conservative that it has no chance of becoming law. This is a major contributor to the current gridlock in our federal government.

In addition to extreme policy positions, House Republicans are also engaging in procedural extremism, including efforts that amount to hostage taking and sabotage, by a group of House members that seems to have few, if any, qualms about stopping government from functioning at all. The most dramatic example has been the use of the need to raise the federal government’s authorized level of debt (known as the debt ceiling). This brinkmanship threatened to cause the US government to default on its debt obligations, which many feel would have had serious impacts on global financial markets and the global economy – not to mention the ability of the government to function.

The fallout of this no-holds barred extremism and obstructionism has been a new breed of partisanship. Any compromise or trade-off is depicted as unacceptable and as a betrayal of values and ideals. For example, even though the economy is recovering (albeit slowly) and the government’s deficit is falling (quite rapidly actually), the heated rhetoric on the deficit and on the notion that government debt undermines the economy continues totally unabated.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to envision how this dynamic can change. I just hope that one way or another we can return to functioning government before real harm has been done to people, our institutions, and our international standing.

FULL POST: While the use of the filibuster in the US Senate gets more attention, the obstructionism and extremism in the US House is more insidious. And it is no less harmful to efforts to make progress on issues our country needs to address or to efforts to make government work effectively. The filibuster is a well-known, long standing, clearly defined tactic for stopping progress in the Senate. In the House, the tactics for blocking progress are more varied and more obscure.

One of the tactics in the House is the so-called “Hastert rule.” Named for Dennis Hastert, who was the Republican House Speaker from 1999 – 2007, it stipulates that no piece of legislation will be voted on unless over half the members of the Republican majority support it. Currently, this means that 117 out of the 234 Republicans in the House can block a piece of legislation from coming to a vote. Therefore, 27% of the members of the House – barely over one quarter – can stop progress. In other words, a piece of legislation supported by 73% of the members of the House (that’s 318 members) can be blocked by the other 117. In the Senate, a filibuster requires the support of 41% of the Senators to stop progress, while only 27% of the Representatives can block progress in the House. [1]

This unwritten Hastert rule is being used by the most conservative members of the House, including the Tea Party members, to block progress. The bipartisan immigration reform bill that the Senate passed is a current example of legislation that this conservative minority has blocked from consideration. And on numerous occasions, it has meant that bipartisan compromises negotiated by the current House Speaker John Boehner are rejected by these conservative members of his own party. To cover up this embarrassing situation, House Republicans look for ways to blame the Democrats, exacerbating the partisanship in Washington.

Another result of the Hastert rule is that legislation that does pass the House, because it has to satisfy the most conservative 117 members of the Republican Party, is generally so conservative that it has no chance of becoming law by passing the Senate and being signed by the President. Therefore, it is rare that viable legislation passes in the House. This is a major contributor to the current gridlock in our federal government.

In addition to extreme policy positions, House Republicans are also engaging in procedural extremism. In Obama’s first two years as President (2009-2010), Republican leaders pressured members to oppose any Obama initiative, even ones Republicans had previously supported. Then, emboldened by their gains in the 2010 elections, even the routine business of keeping government functioning became the subject of virulent obstructionism, including efforts that amount to hostage taking and sabotage, by an extreme group of House members that seems to have few, if any, qualms about stopping government from functioning at all. [2]

The most dramatic example has been the use of the need to raise the federal government’s authorized level of debt (known as the debt ceiling), which simply allows the federal government to make good on its outstanding debts and to fund current authorized expenditures of approved budgets. (Without this, the government has to shut down because it has no cash to pay employees or make payments on contracts for goods or services. In addition, it would default on its debts and stop paying interest on outstanding government bonds.)

In the past, increasing the debt ceiling was a routine and stand-alone matter dealt with regularly by Congress, with perhaps a little posturing. The tactic of these extreme Republicans has been to hold an increase in the debt ceiling hostage to their demands for other policy changes, primarily draconian budget cuts. This brinkmanship threatened to cause the US government to default on its debt obligations, which many feel would have had serious impacts on global financial markets and the global economy – not to mention the ability of the government to function.

The fallout of this no-holds barred extremism and obstructionism has been a new breed of partisanship. To justify total resistance to Obama, the extremists have painted him not just as a liberal (which he hardly is) but as a dangerous and extreme socialist working to destroy everything that makes the US great. Any compromise or trade-off is depicted as unacceptable and as a betrayal of values and ideals. So when Obama makes efforts to reach out, compromise, and be bipartisan, the extremists tend to move even further away, sometimes even repudiating positions they previously held, particularly if Obama comes anywhere close to meeting them.

For example, even though the economy is recovering (albeit slowly) and the government’s deficit is falling (quite rapidly actually), the heated rhetoric on the deficit and on the notion that government debt undermines the economy continues totally unabated.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to envision how this dynamic can change. Obama’s efforts at bipartisanship and compromise have not only not been reciprocated, but at times seem to have led to even more extreme demands. Unless Republican leaders, in the party and specifically in the House, are willing to stand up to the extremist in their party, changes made by voters at the ballot box may be the only way to achieve change. But given state level politics, the way House districts are drawn (and gerrymandered), and the dynamics of campaigns (both in terms of money and messaging), change from the grassroots in elections doesn’t seem to be a likely scenario either.

I just hope that one way or another we can return to functioning government before real harm has been done to people, our institutions, and our international standing.

ABSTRACT: The US Senate reached a bipartisan agreement that ended the obstruction of confirmation for seven of the President’s nominees for executive branch positions. Votes will be held before the August recess on these seven nominees. To obtain this concession, Senate Democrats threatened to change the filibuster rule to prevent its use on executive branch nominations.

No permanent changes in the filibuster rules were made and there was no commitment to end obstruction of nominees beyond these seven positions. These positions are but the tip of the iceberg of obstructionism in the Senate. Hopefully, this respite from obstructionism will apply to other presidential nominations as well and will change the pattern of blocking and delaying confirmations of nominees. Only time will tell.

FULL POST: As you may have heard, the US Senate reached a bipartisan agreement that ended the obstruction of confirmation for seven of the President’s nominees for executive branch positions. Although this deal was greeted with widespread celebration, it is a small step and it is unclear whether it will have any long-term effects.

To obtain this concession, Senate Democrats threatened to change the filibuster rule to prevent its use on executive branch nominations. This rule change can be done with a simple majority vote, i.e., 51 Senators, and the Democrats had the votes to do so. After an extremely rare, three hour, bipartisan, closed-door meeting at which almost all of the 100 Senators spoke, followed by negotiations through the night, a deal was reached.

Votes will be held before the August recess on nominees for seven positions. [1]

• Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (He has been approved after a two year wait with a 66 to 34 vote.)
• Gina McCarthy to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Thomas Perez for Secretary of Labor.
• Fred Hochberg for a second term as president of the Export-Import Bank.
• Mark Pearce for a second term on the National Labor Relations Board.
• Two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board to be named.

No permanent changes in the filibuster rules were made and there was no commitment to end obstruction of nominees beyond these seven positions. These positions are but the tip of the iceberg of obstructionism in the Senate. (See posts of July 21, 16, and 9 for more details.) Republicans in the Senate have taken the obstruction of confirmation of presidential nominees for judgeships and executive branch positions to an unprecedented level. They oppose nominees “for reasons unrelated to their basic qualifications, largely, it seems, to torment and undercut the president.” [2]

Hopefully, this respite from obstructionism will apply to other presidential nominations as well and will change the pattern of blocking and delaying confirmations of nominees in the Senate. Only time will tell.

ABSTRACT: Senate Republicans have delayed and filibustered President Obama’s nominees to fill vacant judgeships nationwide, resulting in 87 vacancies for federal judges, 10% of the total judgeships. Even when President Obama goes out of his way to nominate what would seem to be uncontroversial choices with bipartisan support, Senate Republicans have blocked and delayed confirmation. Many words can be used to describe this: one would be obstructionist; others would be undemocratic and unpatriotic.

I encourage you to contact your Senators to express support for ending the blocking of judicial appointments. Our justice system needs these judgeships filled so it can function effectively and provide justice for all!

FULL POST: Senate Republicans have delayed and filibustered [1] President Obama’s nominees to fill vacant judgeships nationwide, resulting in 87 vacancies for federal judges, 10% of the total judgeships. A third of these vacancies are considered “judicial emergencies” because of their impact on the administration of justice. [2]

For example, four of eleven judgeships on the D.C. federal appeals court, considered one of the most important courts in the country, were vacant when Obama took office in 2009. In May, 2013, after five years of trying, one judge was confirmed on a 97 to 0 vote. The nominee had worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations and had been a clerk for former Supreme Court Justice O’Connor, who was appointed by President Reagan. So despite being a bipartisan and apparently uncontroversial nominee, it took five years to get Republicans to allow his confirmation.[3]

A second nominee for this court was filibustered for a second time this spring [4] (or the fourth time depending on how you count). The nomination was originally made in September, 2010, and Obama renominated her four times after the Senate failed to act on or filibustered her nomination. [5] President Obama then withdrew this nomination and recently nominated three others, all current judges, to fill the remaining vacancies. He challenged Senate Republicans to stop their obstructionism and at least allow a yes or no vote on these nominees. [6]

Even when President Obama goes out of his way to nominate what would seem to be uncontroversial choices with bipartisan support, Senate Republicans have blocked and delayed confirmation. These seem to be clear cases of wanting to score political points by making life difficult for Obama and slowing down the work of his administration.

As I wrote in my last post, the examples above are not isolated incidents but part of a concerted strategy of extreme partisanship and/or rigid ideology by some Republicans to prevent government from functioning, to undermine President Obama, and to bog down the Senate and the Obama administration in political fights that prevent important issues facing our country from being addressed. Many words can be used to describe this: one would be obstructionist; others would be undemocratic and unpatriotic.

I encourage you to contact your Senators to express support for ending the blocking of judicial appointments. Our justice system needs these judgeships filled so it can function effectively and provide justice for all!

ABSTRACT: The willingness of some Republicans to impede the effective functioning of the federal government has extended to consistent efforts to block or delay the President’s nominees to fill positions in the Executive Branch. Senate Republicans have filibustered, threatened to filibuster, or have otherwise delayed a number of Obama’s selections for cabinet posts, including the secretaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury, as well as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Similarly, Senate Republicans are blocking nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and for two years have refused to confirm anyone to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. House and Senate Republicans have refused to appoint members to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a health care cost control group.

Even when President Obama goes out of his way to nominate what would seem to be uncontroversial choices with bipartisan support, Senate Republicans have engaged in filibustering and delaying confirmation. Many words can be used to describe this strategy: one would be obstructionist; others would be undemocratic and unpatriotic. I encourage you to contact your Senators to express support for ending the blocking of Executive Branch appointments. Our government needs to be able to function!

FULL POST: The willingness of some Republicans to impede the effective functioning of the federal government has extended to consistent efforts to block or delay the President’s nominees to fill positions in the Executive Branch.

Senate Republicans have filibustered [1], threatened to filibuster, and otherwise delayed many of President Obama’s nominees to fill executive branch positions, including a number of Obama’s selections for cabinet posts. They threatened to filibuster and conducted such an aggressive campaign against Susan Rice, who Obama wanted to nominate for Secretary of State, that her name was never formally submitted. They threatened to filibuster Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, even though he was a former Republican Senator, and a conservative one at that. After a concerted effort to discredit him, he was eventually approved.

Senate Republicans are delaying confirmation of the President’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gina McCarthy, and have been for over four months. One of their delaying tactics, and part of an effort to make the delaying tactics seem justified, is their submission of over 1,000 written questions, some with multiple parts, that they demand that she answer. (The previous three EPA nominees had received between 157 and 305 written questions.) Answering these questions in writing required over 200 pages and untold hours of work over two weeks by an unknown number of government employees.

Political scientist Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, “One thousand questions is beyond the point of absurdity … This is ratcheting up obstruction and partisan warfare to an unprecedented level.” [2]

Furthermore, Senate Republicans blocked a scheduled committee vote on her nomination by boycotting the meeting. McCarthy, who has 25 years experience in the field, was viewed as a safe, compromise choice given that she had worked for five Republican Governors (four in Massachusetts and one in Connecticut). One of those MA Governors was Jane Swift, who wrote, “I have witnessed firsthand the qualities that make McCarthy so uniquely qualified to take on the challenges of heading the nation’s top environmental department. … Obama deserves to select his own team. The Senate should swiftly approve McCarthy’s nomination.” [3]

Similarly, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, when nominated earlier this year faced 444 written questions or 700 if each question in a multipart question is counted individually. This was far more than his predecessors, despite the fact that his Wall Street and government experience meant he was from the same mold as his predecessors. Confirmation of Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Labor is currently being delayed.

Even when President Obama goes out of his way to nominate what would seem to be uncontroversial choices with bipartisan support, such as McCarthy for the EPA and Hagel for the Defense Department, Senate Republicans have engaged in blocking and delaying confirmation. Every other president has been allowed to pick his cabinet members without much opposition in the Senate, under the premise that a president should be allowed to select his own team and then be held accountable for their performance. Currently, some Republicans are engaged in a “state of permanent partisan warfare over Obama’s Cabinet nominees.” [4]

Senate Republicans are also blocking five nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, the agency charged with protecting the rights of workers. They are also suing the President to invalidate the appointments he made without Senate confirmation when the Senate was in recess, a practice previous presidents have used when appointments have been delayed. The combination of these efforts effectively paralyzes the agency and may invalidate some of its previous actions. Part of the motivation for these obstructionist tactics is the Republicans’ effort to undermine the effectiveness of unions, given that this Board addresses formal complaints filed by unions. As Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren put it, “This is about complete obstructionism because the minority senators don’t like the agencies, and they don’t like the work these agencies do.” [5]

Senate Republicans have for two years refused to confirm (by threatening a filibuster) anyone to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, once again because they don’t like this agency and its role of protecting consumers from fraud and misleading practices by financial corporations. (See 7/26/12 post.)

House and Senate Republicans have refused to appoint members to the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This Board of medical experts, created by the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare), works to control health care costs by evaluating drugs, treatments, and other health care measures. Because Republicans oppose the health care law, they are defying the law and refusing to appoint the members they are required to, which was part of the effort to make the law bipartisan. Board members need to be confirmed by the Senate as well, and if Senate Republicans block confirmation of appointees to the Board, its responsibilities will fall to Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. This isn’t what one would think the Republicans would want to see happen. Therefore, it appears that this is an effort to delay and obstruct the functioning of government, while hoping to score political points for appearing to oppose ObamaCare. [6]

Republicans’ obstructionism, at least in part, is due to their opposition to current policies, to the established missions of some agencies, and to most government regulation in general. In our democratic system, the way to address such concerns is to change them through legislation. The Republicans resort to the undemocratic tactics of obstruction because the majority of the country does not agree with them.

The examples above are not isolated incidents but a concerted strategy of extreme partisanship and/or rigid ideology by some Republicans to undermine President Obama, to bog down Congress and the Obama administration in political fights that prevent important issues facing our country from being addressed, and, ultimately, to prevent government from functioning effectively. Many words can be used to describe this strategy: one would be obstructionist; others would be undemocratic and unpatriotic.

The Senate may well vote soon on restricting the use of the filibuster to block Executive Branch appointments. I encourage you to contact your Senators to express support for ending the blocking of Executive Branch appointments. Our government needs to be able to function!

ABSTRACT: Democrats believe in making government work. Republicans, at least many current ones, don’t exhibit a commitment to making government work. They block legislation and an unprecedented number and breadth of Presidential appointments, including judges and cabinet secretaries.

Rigid ideology and extreme partisanship are drivers of the gridlock: many Republicans seem willing to use any means available to block Obama’s initiatives, anything that would appear to be a success for him, and his administration’s efforts to govern effectively. Senate Republicans filibuster, while Republicans in the House have developed a strategy of policy hostage taking. While there are isolated examples of Democrats using some of the Republicans’ tactics, the current obstructionism by Republicans is unprecedented in both its breadth and its frequency.

Some of the Republicans, particularly those that identify with the Tea Party, are doing everything they can to sabotage government and keep it from operating effectively. Then when it falls short, they shout “See, we told you government can’t do anything right!”

Examples of Republicans impeding the functioning of Congress include: 1) in the budget process, they refused to appoint members for the conference committee that resolves differences between the House and Senate bills; 2) filibustered legislation to reduce gun violence; 3) blocked the ratification of an international treaty despite widespread, bipartisan support; and 4) blocked progress by filibustering or threatening to filibuster over 400 times since 2006.

The public’s well-being and future generations are hurt when our legislative branch doesn’t function.

FULL POST: Democrats’ ideology is that government has an important and positive role to play in our society. Republicans’ ideology is that a minimal government role is best and that government is more often a negative than a positive factor. But it goes a step further. Democrats believe in making government work, in doing the best that can be done to foster a civil and just society, despite limitations and challenges. They believe in implementing existing laws and making existing agencies work to fulfill their missions. Republicans, at least many current ones, don’t exhibit a commitment to making government work. As a consequence, they block legislation, including essential legislation, even when there is a majority in favor of it, through tactics such as filibustering in the Senate (see posts of 6/15/12 and 6/10/12) or refusing to move legislation forward in the House. [1] Senate Republicans have also used the filibuster to block an unprecedented number and breadth of Presidential appointments, including judges, cabinet secretaries, and other positions in government agencies. (See 5/20/12 post.)

In addition to rigid ideology, extreme partisanship is also a driver of the gridlock: many Republicans are of the mindset that if President Obama is for something, they will be against it – even in cases where they had previously supported the position or issue. And they seem willing to use any means available to block Obama’s initiatives, anything that would appear to be a success for him, and his administration’s efforts to govern effectively. While the Senate Republicans filibuster, Republicans in the House, led by Eric Cantor (VA), Paul Ryan (WI), and Kevin McCarthy (CA), have developed a strategy of policy hostage taking. Their most notable effort was their refusal to raise the US government’s debt ceiling, which was needed to fund the activities previously approved by Congress and the president under the country’s budget. They took hostage the full faith and credit of the US Government to pay its debts. As Thomas Mann said, “It’s hard to imagine a more destructive action.” [2] In the House, the extreme partisanship of the Republican majority means that the Democratic minority is all but ignored. [3]

While there are isolated examples of Democrats using some of these tactics, the current obstructionism by Republicans is unprecedented in both its breadth and its frequency.

Some of the Republicans, particularly those that identify with the Tea Party, do not feel a responsibility to abide by the historical rules of operation or to work to promote the successful functioning of government. A recent survey documented that Tea Party activists do not want their elected representative to compromise and are happy to have them prevent government from functioning. [4] Furthermore, some of these activists and elected officials promote their ideology by doing everything they can to sabotage government and keep it from operating effectively. Then when it falls short, they shout “See, we told you government can’t do anything right!” [5]

Examples of Republicans impeding the functioning of Congress include the following:

This spring, both houses of Congress passed budget bills. The process calls for a conference committee of both chambers to be appointed to reconcile differences between the two bills. However, the House Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, chair of the Budget Committee, refused to appoint members for the conference committee – an unprecedented act of obstructionism. After a month of negotiations, Democrats gave up on the effort to form a conference committee, so the government continues to run without a normal budget in place. [6]

Senate Republicans have filibustered * legislation to reduce gun violence by expanding background checks for gun purchases. (See 4/20/13 and 5/9/13 posts.) Senate Republicans also blocked the ratification of an international treaty on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, despite widespread, bipartisan support, ratification by 126 other countries, and the fact that it was modeled on the American with Disabilities Act. (See post of 12/8/12.)

Senate Republicans have blocked progress by filibustering or threatening to filibuster over 400 times since they lost the majority in 2006; that’s over once a week on average. As two, bi-partisan political scientist have written, Senate Republicans are using the filibuster “to delay and obstruct quietly on nearly all matters, including routine and widely supported ones.” They have filibustered judges, top administration officials, and a wide range of legislation. [7]

The US has serious problems, short and long-term, including unemployment, stagnant wages, and global competition, that need to be addressed through legislation. The public’s well-being and future generations are hurt when our legislative branch doesn’t function because Republicans are committed to a rigid ideology, refuse to compromise, and believe that scoring political points is more important than solving problems. [8]

My next post will review the impacts of Republican obstructionism on the judicial and executive branches of government.