GOP Filibusters Senate Ethics Reform
In case anyone wasn't sure which American political party was the one of unabashed evil, recent events should reveal it. A centerpiece of the Democratic legislation being passed in the "100 hours" campaign since they've taken over both houses of congress is an ethical reform bill designed to stymie the likes of Tom DeLay and other elected officials who enjoy skirting the boundaries of ethics. And Republicans tanked it.
"It's as obvious as the sun coming up somewhere in this world that they tried to kill this bill," a furious Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said last night in an interview. "And all 21 Republican senators up for reelection are going to have to explain how they brought down the most significant reform ever to come before this Congress. They brought this baby down."
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said insistence on a line-item-veto vote was proof that the GOP is serious about passing the toughest possible overhaul of the way Congress conducts its business. Efforts to give Bush power to strike individual items from spending bills have been struck down by the Supreme Court, but Senate Republicans insist that the latest version will pass constitutional muster.
The bill was to be the Democratic-controlled Senate's first piece of legislation, a statement of bipartisanship and a break from the scandals that helped return the party to power. Instead, a measure that began with Reid and McConnell as co-sponsors was chased from the floor in a partisan showdown when Republicans prevented the Democratic leadership from bringing it to a vote. The 51 to 46 vote was nowhere close to the two-thirds majority needed to break the Republican filibuster.
The Republicans who filibustered the bill insisted that in order to bring it up for a vote, which would almost certainly pass (who wants to run for reelection being known as the "senator who vetoed ethics"?) Democrats needed to vote on a separate bill that would essentially grant the president a line-item veto, that is, the ability to veto individual portions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. A similar bill was passed during Clinton's term and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion stated that a constitutional amendment would have to be passed in order to legalize the veto.
So it's not clear why the Republicans were so keen to bring up a bill almost certain to fail constitutional muster that would grant considerable power to a lame duck, unpopular president, unless they were playing the worst kind of partisan politics - trying to sabotage any bill that the Democratic party passes by giving Bush the means to gut it.
Keep in mind, this is the same party that just two years ago seriously considered implementing the "nuclear option," that is, a change in the rules of senate procedure that would allow a simple majority vote rather than the current 60 seat majority required to override a filibuster and force a vote. And now it is the Republicans who are clearly being obstructionist, blocking the passage of a much needed bill with wide bipartisan support for their own crass political gains.
Is anyone surprised?
PAGE:
1 | 2 | 3
Comments
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
JAN 18, 2007 11:13 AM
wildswan
I'm lost
June 2006
JAN 18, 2007 11:21 AM
Quirky
Birmingham, AL
October 2005
JAN 18, 2007 11:25 AM
wildswan
I'm lost
June 2006
JAN 18, 2007 11:34 AM
Quirky
Birmingham, AL
October 2005
JAN 18, 2007 11:37 AM
mingol
Singapore
July 2005
JAN 18, 2007 11:42 AM
wildswan
I'm lost
June 2006
JAN 18, 2007 11:46 AM
PogMoThoin
Jamaica, NY
January 2004
JAN 18, 2007 11:47 AM
wildswan
I'm lost
June 2006
JAN 18, 2007 11:49 AM
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
JAN 18, 2007 11:50 AM
wildswan
I'm lost
June 2006
JAN 18, 2007 11:53 AM
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
JAN 18, 2007 11:56 AM
wildswan
I'm lost
June 2006
JAN 18, 2007 11:56 AM
Quirky
Birmingham, AL
October 2005
JAN 18, 2007 12:00 PM
zarth
Seattle, WA
December 2004
JAN 18, 2007 12:12 PM
PAGE:
1 | 2 | 3