Fuzzy - Talk About the Hastert Rule

I wasn't aware of the practice of the "Hastert Rule" in the House prior to Boehner dropping it for the fiscal cliff vote. On the surface it seems to me to be pretty damn partisan and subversive of the intended function of the House. Fuzzy, you've always got a contrarian, seemingly objective, veiw on things so I thought I'd put it to you directly....

For anyone who was in a coma earlier in the week:

According to the Hastert rule the Speaker of the House does not allow the full House to vote on any legislation unless a majority of his political party has already indicated they would vote for it. In practice this means a minority caucus in the House of Reps can stop legislation. For example if 60% of House seats are Republican and even 51% of those Republicans oppose a bill, like raising the debt ceiling, then the bill cannot pass even though a pretty firm majority of the overall House supports it.

Without looking up dates and details I believe Hastert (R) was the Speaker before Pelosi and the news I've heard implies this practice started with him, hence the namesake. Pelosi continued the practice in her tenure and so has Boehner up until this week. I had also heard both prior Speakers occasionally made exceptions, as Boehner did, in important circumstances.

So when Boehner says in a press conference this or that proposal can't pass the House, was he actually saying it can't get the majority of Republican votes? That's more than a little dishonest, IMO. And the practice effectively discards the House representation of constituents to the minority party Representatives - essentially it disenfranchises them. Seems like crap democracy to me.

Governmental abusers of power abusing their power???

This happens in the Senate too! Double your pleasure, double your fun!

Works that way essentially in the UK, sort of. The issue is that any legislature has a limited amount of time available to it so many potential bills that could theoretically pass can't if not given enough time. Here the government controls the timetabling so if the PM opposes potential legislation then even if a majority could be found for it then it simply won't find enough time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I wasn't aware of the practice of the "Hastert Rule" in the House prior to Boehner dropping it for the fiscal cliff vote. On the surface it seems to me to be pretty damn partisan and subversive of the intended function of the House. Fuzzy, you've always got a contrarian, seemingly objective, veiw on things so I thought I'd put it to you directly....

For anyone who was in a coma earlier in the week:

According to the Hastert rule the Speaker of the House does not allow the full House to vote on any legislation unless a majority of his political party has already indicated they would vote for it. In practice this means a minority caucus in the House of Reps can stop legislation. For example if 60% of House seats are Republican and even 51% of those Republicans oppose a bill, like raising the debt ceiling, then the bill cannot pass even though a pretty firm majority of the overall House supports it.

Without looking up dates and details I believe Hastert (R) was the Speaker before Pelosi and the news I've heard implies this practice started with him, hence the namesake. Pelosi continued the practice in her tenure and so has Boehner up until this week. I had also heard both prior Speakers occasionally made exceptions, as Boehner did, in important circumstances.

So when Boehner says in a press conference this or that proposal can't pass the House, was he actually saying it can't get the majority of Republican votes? That's more than a little dishonest, IMO. And the practice effectively discards the House representation of constituents to the minority party Representatives - essentially it disenfranchises them. Seems like crap democracy to me.

---

The practice did not start with Hastert. It's not particularly new, it's a fairly normal *and yes, damn partisan* use of the Speaker's procedural powers. There is a way around it, albeit one that is more often used when a committee chairman is sitting on a bill rather than when the Speaker is, but in the last 20 years it has become significantly harder to use that measure because a Democratic House passed a rule making that petition no longer a secret ballot shortly before the Republicans took control in '94. The last time the "Hastert rule" was directly overrun by this method that I'm aware of was for McCain-Feingold.

Process matters. Instead of talking about the Hastert rule....maybe we should be talking about how congress (house and senate, both) enact procedural rules that muck up governance.

Like the filibuster rules that allow a minority to stymie any majority progress, or demanding a super-majority instead of a simple majority.