From Politico: Senate rejects all gun bills

More on last night's vote:


- Click here for the article.

The Senate voted down four separate gun measures Monday in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history — showing the partisan paralysis over gun control has barely moved on Capitol Hill despite the stream of continued gun violence across the country.

Lawmakers took up two separate issues involving gun regulations: how to improve the nation’s background check system for those who want to purchase firearms, and how to ensure those with terrorist ties do not obtain a gun. But those questions remained unresolved by lawmakers as of Monday night.

Instead, Democrats made it clear they want to make it as painful for Republicans to oppose their gun amendments, whether through a flood of advocacy calls to their Senate offices or at the ballot box in November.

For a look at the actual votes, click here: Senate Roll Call Votes.

The votes were not for a unique stand alone bill on gun control. Instead they were offered as amendment to one of the appropriations bills that has to passed later this year. Click here for it:

- H.R.2578 - Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.

For more on the appropriations process:

- House Committee on Appropriations.
- Congress.Gov: Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017.

Scott Brown Votes Against Filibuster

In 2302, when we discuss the behavior of individual legislators, we point out the tension that can exist between the needs of the constituents and the party caucus. Scott Brown's election to the U.S. Senate empowered the Senate Republican Conference by giving them enough vote to fight off attempts to stop a filibuster, but that doesn't mean that all their members will join. Brown might be a Republican but he represents a liberal state, so his constituents wont support him if he votes with the conservatives.

Perhaps this bests explains his decision to vote against a filibuster on a jobs bill that eventually passed the Senate (it will now head to a conference committee in order for it to be reconciled with a House bill passed previously). He faces re-election in 2012, which is not that far away.

This points out an irony when party's grown in size, they may actually lose strength because they may become less cohesive. As long as the Republicans in the Senate were small in number and mostly conservative, it was more likely that they could stay together. But once you add a moderate -- and possibly a tad liberal -- voice to the mix, this cohesion becomes compromised. In fact, if he chooses to be vocal in his positions, he might choose to be a thorn in the side of Senate Republican leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if he teams up with fellow northeastern Republican Senators Snowe and Collins, and perhaps others, to force their way on issues important to them and their constituents. Remember that they hold the key to a successful filibuster. They are in a position to force a great many concessions if they choose to do so.

And Franken Makes 60

From the NYT, some observations about the consequences of Dems having 60 senators:

With 60 votes (including those of two independents) now most likely aligned with the Democrats, the party could avoid filibusters.

But Mr. Franken swiftly made it clear that he did not view himself as the Democrats’ No. 60. “That’s not how I see it,” he said, adding that he was “going to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota, and that’s how I’m going to do this job.”

Though Republicans expressed disappointment at the outcome, they had in recent weeks become increasingly resigned to Mr. Franken joining the Senate.

On Tuesday, they joined Mr. Coleman in acknowledging defeat and immediately sought to raise expectations for Democrats.

“With their supermajority, the era of excuses and finger-pointing is now over,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Mr. Cornyn said it was “troubling to think about what they might now accomplish with 60 votes.”

But whether Democrats can consistently rely on 60 senators being present is in question. Two veteran Democrats, Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, are ailing and have regularly been absent from the Senate. In addition, a handful of moderate to conservative Democrats have shown a willingness to break from the party, and even liberals will do so on some issues.

Democrats are known for being difficult to organize in some coherent manner, especially in the Senate. Conversely, as Republicans decrease in size, they become more cohesive and more disruptive. It will interesting to follow the dynamic between the respective parties.

Stimulus Survives Filibuster Attempt in the Senate

I was wrong in class today when I predicted that Republicans would not filibuster the stimulus bill. A cloture vote was passed this evening in order to stop, or prevent a filibuster. This should guarantee passage of the bill, which will then lead to a conference committee where changes in the Senate bill will be reconciled with the bill that passed the House.

Three Republican Senators voted for the bill:
- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. (up for reelection in 2010)
- Susan Collins of Maine. (up for reelection in 2014)
- Olympia Snowe of Maine. (up for reelection in 2012)

I mention when each is up for reelection since I suggested that senators who voted for the bill would likely be those who did not have to face the voters in 2010. Not the case obviously. As in the House, the Republican caucus seems to have held together.

The two key changes involved cuts to funds for state and local government to help them make up shortfalls due to diminished revenues caused by the recession, and funds to assist with school construction projects. Now we should expect a battle between the Democrats in each chamber over the projects taken out in the Senate. If they are placed back into the bill, will the three Republicans continue to support the bill?

The Power of 60

Three majority votes in the Senate failed this week because Democrats were unable to muster 60 votes in their favor. 60 allows for a cloture vote, which breaks a filibuster.

1- A proposal to lengthen home leaves failed even though it received a majority vote of 56 to 44.
(S A 2909)

2- A proposal to give DC a vote in Congress failed despite receiving a vote of 57 to 42. (S 1257)

3- A proposal to habeas corpus to those detained by the United States despite a vote of 56 to 43. (SA 2022)

No surprise really since the Senate, by design, has always been able to empower a minority to stop legislation. That's why it looks the way it does. If we tallied the populations represented by the senators we may well find that they represent the interest of an even smaller fraction of the population.

The votes demonstrate that president Bush still has the ability to rally his party behind him. If the population is firmly behind the Democrats, they will be able to use these votes as campaign items in 2008. That's why we have elections.

Here's my question: When Democrats were in the minority and used similar tactics, Republicans argued that they violated democratic principles and proposed a nuclear, or constitutional, option that would have eliminated filibusters. It's not a constitutional power after all. So why don't we hear the same from Democrats?