Some notes on Repub obstructionism. Bear with me. The case for filibuster reform has never been stronger. The first two years of the Obama adm intensified frustration among Sen Ds with the R's obstructionism. In Jan 2011, Harkin, Merkley, and Udall attempted to negotiate a reform package to address the motion to proceed, guaranteeing the minority amendments, and other issues.

Schumer is sending signals but how far he will go to slow Senate action in protest of action on the Supreme Court nomination is not clear. Much has been made of Schumer having a memo with a list of obstructive moves. He doesn’t need a list. Last week he invoked the 2-hour rule: No Senate committee or subcmte (except the Committees on Appropriations & Budget and their subcmtes) can meet after the Senate has been in session for two hours or past 2:00 p.m. w/o Senate approval or agreement of the two leaders.

@amyklobuchar has been touting the (true) fact that she “was named the most effective Democratic senator.” She is a fine senator and great presidential candidate, but let’s check on the possible misuse of a counting scheme offered by a couple political scientists. The “Legislative Effectiveness Score” is calculated by 2 political scientists based on how far a legislator’s bills advances in the legislative process, adjusting for the number of bills sponsored and crude categories of bill significance. thelawmakers.org/methodology

Some notes on the House-Senate stalemate on impeachment... 1/The Constitution gives the House the “sole power of impeachment” and gives the House the power to set its own rules. Therefore, it can “send” the articles of impeachment to the Senate when it wants to do so (as for any other measure). See Purcell: thehill.com/opinion/judici…

As in the lead up to the 1999 trial, the president’s party wants a motion to dismiss and the opposition wants witnesses. They got both in 1999 but only AFTER the trial began. The length of the trial, a motion to dismiss, and witnesses were all undecided when the trial started. The resolution that set the length of trial & created a motion to dismiss was adopted a day after the swearing in of the chief justice and senators. The question of witnesses was decided on a party-line vote 20 days into the trial & only after the motion to dismiss was defeated.

Re queries about House floor consideration of the 1998 articles of impeachment. In 1998, the House (Repub majority) took up the impeachment resolution as a privileged matter. No need for a special rule from the Rules Committee. As a substitute, the Judiciary Committee chair (Hyde) negotiated a unanimous consent request with the Dems to establish supplementary rules that limited debate on the resolution, a motion to recommit, and a separate resolution to appoint House managers.

The 1999 #SenateTrial: There is an incomplete account of the 1999 Clinton trial circulating. It leaves the impression that Repub leader Lott and Dem leader Daschle amicably produced a unanimous vote for a rules to govern the trial. Note: Senate rules governing a trial do NOT provide for a "motion to dismiss." Supplementary rules must be adopted to create such a motion. Witnesses & a motion to dismiss, and the timing of each, were controversial within both parties in late 1998.

The process of getting rules set for the Clinton trial in early 1999 was chaotic despite the efforts of Lott and Daschle to get a bipartisan agreement. Many Repubs wanted to call witnesses, as did House Repub managers, to maximize damage to Clinton. Majority Leader Lott saw witnesses and a drawn-out process as pointless (there were nowhere near 67 votes for conviction). Lack of agreement within Repub conference and between parties led to a meeting of all senators in the old chamber.

A few thoughts about Democratic presidential candidates' views on the Senate filibuster. Warren shares the views of many liberal or progressive Democrats who argue that the 60-vote threshold for cloture is a long-term obstacle to enacting progressive legislation. No other major Dem candidate has consistently favored filibuster reform. See washingtonpost.com/graphics/polit…

In response to recent inquiries, some notes on the Hastert and Boehner rules. The "Hastert rule" refers to the practice of the House speaker bringing a bill to the floor only if it is supported by a majority of the majority party. For political scientists, the Hastert rule is similar to the "cartel theory" rule that a bill comes to the floor only if supported by a majority of the majority party AND a majority of the House. If observed faithfully, this rule means that the majority party never loses.