Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Procedural Implications of the Midterm Elections
|
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Procedural Implications of the Midterm Elections
David Super
Well before the
recent election, activists and pundits were hard at work shaping expectations
for what would change in light of anticipated Republican losses. Many of these predictions reflect
considerable naivete about the operations of Congress. Although many questions remain open, it seems
useful to review what we know to this point. This is the first of two posts; the second
will focus specifically on budgetary issues.
First, as to
leadership. The Senate is unlikely to
see meaningful changes at the top:
Majority Leader McConnell led his caucus to larger-than-expected
gains. Democrats’ losses seem hard to
attribute to Minority Leader Schumer, and having won his position by
acclamation just two years ago he has no obvious challenger. House Majority Leader McCarthy was easily
elected minority leader after having worked tirelessly, and reasonably
successfully, to minimize his party’s losses.
He also had the President’s support, which insulated him against the
conservative critics who denied him the speakership previously. To prevail, he only needed a majority of the
Republican Caucus.
House Democrats
are another story. Rep. Pelosi was one
of the most skilled and effective speakers of modern times; if anything, she
demonstrated even more acumen as minority leader. Her ability to force Republicans into
difficult votes while often shielding her own Members has a lot to do with
Democrats’ reconquest of the House. She
also shrewdly leveraged situations when the Republican Caucus was split to
extract substantial policy concessions from the Speakers Boehner and Ryan in
exchange for the necessary Democratic votes.
The minority leader risks blowing up a deal of this kind if she dances a
jig upon its completion, but her successes in defanging the devices Republicans
had used to leverage cuts in domestic programs – the debt limit, sequestration,
the need to adjust Medicare physicians’ reimbursement rates, etc. – merit a
full ballet.
Republicans have, however,
succeeded in making her a lightning rod and frequently tried to tie Democratic
candidates to her. Her path to the
speakership is considerably more difficult than Rep. McCarthy’s path to
becoming minority leader was because she not only needs to win a majority of
the Democratic Caucus – which she likely will secure in the next two weeks –
but also to have 218 Members vote for her to be speaker on the first day of the
new Congress. That would require several
Democrats who pledged not to vote for her to reverse their positions. She is a superb vote-counter, and if she does
not have those votes will withdraw on her own.
If she does step down, the rest of the House Democratic leadership,
which currently has regional and factional balance, may be upended. For example, if Democrats choose a more
moderate candidate for speaker, progressive members may demand that one of
their own become majority leader rather than retaining Minority Whip
Hoyer. Sorting this out could take quite
some time.
Senate Republicans
may claim that their modest gains entitle them to shift the partisan balance in
committees’ membership, presumably to create an 11-to-9 Republican advantage on
the typical committee. Democrats in
theory could filibuster the organizing resolution that sets up Senate
committees at the start of the new Congress but likely would only do so if the
Republicans overreach sufficiently that the Democrats feel confident that the
public will not blame them for obstructionism.
During the George W. Bush administration, Republicans (relying on Vice
President Cheney’s tie-breaking vote) insisted upon a one-seat advantage on all
committees when the Senate was evenly divided between the parties, and
Democrats acquiesced. In the current
situation, one can imagine negotiations leading to two-seat Republican
majorities on more powerful committees and one-seat majorities on others.
A two-seat
Republican majority still would allow Democrats to block legislation or
nominations if they can stay together and persuade one Republican. It does mean, however, that Democratic
amendments to legislation will fail in committee unless they can attract two
crossovers, which seems unlikely given the near-total disappearance of
Republican moderates. A two-seat
majority also would allow Republicans to advance legislation when one of their Senators
is ill or otherwise absent.
House committees
historically provide the majority party considerably larger margins than their
overall numbers would dictate.
Nonetheless, because of the ideological range of the caucus, some
committees may prove unreliable for the leadership’s priorities. And with relatively tenuous control of the
House and many new Members from Republican-leaning districts, Democrats cannot
even consider passing over more conservative Members who are in line to chair
committees.
Some Democratic
activists have rejoiced that Democrats will have a voice in policy for the
first time under President Trump. This
is incorrect: the threat of a filibuster
required all legislation apart from budget reconciliation bills to be
negotiated with Senate Democrats, and fractures in the House Republican Caucus often
gave House Democrats leverage on important legislation such as appropriations
and legislation raising the debt limit. Democrats’
taking over the House should, however, prevent Republicans from threatening to
resort to budget reconciliation. That,
in turn, will strengthen the hand of Senate Democrats despite their somewhat
diminished numbers by forcing all legislation to go through the regular order.
The House
Democratic leadership may have considerable difficulty controlling the
floor. Although control of the gavel and
committee supermajorities initially may succeed in bottling up problematic
legislation, Republicans amended House rules to facilitate petitions
discharging committees from the further consideration of particular bills. If a majority of representatives signs a discharge
petition for a particular bill or resolution, the leadership must bring it
before the House promptly. Republican
seem likely to exert strong pressure on vulnerable Democrats to sign discharge
petitions on politically seductive legislation, including bills to further harm
the environment and to intensify pressure for budget cuts by extending or
expanding the 2017 tax cuts.
One result of a
Democratic House majority that activists most eagerly anticipate, and that
Republicans most fear, is the ability to subpoena executive branch witnesses to
investigate what the Administration has been doing. This process is not nearly as simple as many
seem to believe.
Rule XI(m) of the
House’s standing rules allow committees and subcommittees to issue subpoenas,
either by a majority vote or through committee rules delegating the subpoena power
to the chair. One might hope that the
issuance of such a subpoena would be decisive, but the current Administration may
not be inclined to comply routinely,
The Senate has a
special statute
allowing its legal counsel to bring a civil contempt action in federal district
court to compel compliance with its subpoenas.
The House, unfortunately, lacks such a statute (and certainly is
unlikely to obtain one under this Administration).
Should an
Administration official (or anyone else) ignore a subpoena, the House may pass
a resolution asserting that that individual is in contempt of Congress and
referring her or him to the appropriate U.S. attorney for prosecution. Jefferson’s
Manual § 299 at 143-44 (2017). The
first such case against a sitting executive branch official involved EPA Administrator
Anne Gorsuch in 1982.
The President,
however, controls the Justice Department, and his appointees can decline to
take action against those ignoring House subpoenas. The President has repeatedly asserted that
the Department of Justice should act to further the current Administration’s
policy; it therefore remains to be seen whether this aspect of the Department’s
historical and
statutory
role will survive. The House
occasionally has passed resolutions authorizing the Sergeant at Arms or other
officers of the House to retain counsel to assert the interests of the House, Jefferson’s
Manual § 291b at 135 (2017), and in theory it may direct its Sergeant at
Arms to detain any recalcitrant witness.
Jefferson’s
Manual § 297, at 140 (2017). When
compared with the resources of the Administration, however, these seem rather
underpowered.
Should the Administration
both refuse to comply with a lawful subpoena and direct the Justice Department
to take no action to enforce the House’s subpoena, the House in theory could
commence impeachment proceedings against the official refusing to comply,
against the attorney general, or against the President. The minimal prospects of obtaining the
required two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict – indeed, with no
assurances that Senator McConnell would even convene an impeachment trial at
all – this is a rather limited threat.
These practical
limitations may be part of Democratic leaders’ motivation in insisting that
House committees limit and coordinate their oversight efforts. If subpoenas may only be effectively
enforceable in the court of public opinion, Democrats will want to avoid the
perception that they are overreaching.
One possible
deterrent to blatant disregard for the House’s subpoenas is the possibility
that an individual doing so could be prosecuted under the next Administration
should the President not be re-elected. Although
prosecutions under the statute
for contempt of court carry
a one-year statute of limitations, contempt of Congress is criminalized under a
separate law
and thus would appear to fall under the general
five-year federal statute of limitations.
Of course, any Administration official refusing to comply with a House
subpoena facing that prospect could hope that the President would pardon her or
him before leaving office.
Posted 6:19 PM by David Super [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |