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 What the Senate Parliamentarian Could Learn from Justice Scalia
|
Saturday, December 18, 2021
What the Senate Parliamentarian Could Learn from Justice Scalia
David Super
Late Thursday, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected Democrats’ third proposal to include relief for undocumented immigrants in the pending Build Back Better reconciliation bill. Specifically, she ruled that these provisions violate section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act, which allows a point of order to be raised against a provision “if it produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision”. This was the same basis on which she rejected the Democrats’ two previous proposals. All three of these invocations of the “merely incidental” rule are strange because the various immigration provisions that have been proposed for inclusion have been estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars. (Once legalized, immigrants will be able to apply for benefits such as Social Security that their taxes have long supported. Immigrants also will apply for refunds when their taxes are over-withheld.) The “merely incidental” rule’s primary function is to prevent senators from inserting some token fines or salary money into a revision of a regulatory scheme having little to do with fiscal policy: it says you cannot rewrite telecom policy on reconciliation just by charging the big carrier a few dollars. The Parliamentarian justifies her ruling against legalization of undocumented by saying that she believes sponsors’ purposes are primarily non-fiscal even if the language and effect of the provision is quite large. Taken seriously, this standard has serious problems. Virtually nothing in this reconciliation bill, in the 2017 tax cut reconciliation bill, or in any reconciliation bill that increases the deficit has a primarily fiscal motivation. The sponsors of provisions increasing food assistance are not trying to drive up the deficit: they are trying to feed people, with the increase in the deficit an undesired but acceptable consequence. The sponsors of the tax cut provisions in the 2017 reconciliation bill did not seek to increase the deficit – indeed, they claimed that dynamic effects would prevent that from happening – they were trying to lower taxes for corporations and the affluent. Perhaps some Keynesian stimulus measures genuinely seek to increase the deficit, but even then senators emphasize the benefits to the direct recipients. Thus, if applied consistently, the Parliamentarian’s rationale would deny reconciliation protection for measures that increase the deficit. That might not be bad policy, but previous parliamentarians rejected that interpretation of the Congressional Budget Act when they allowed massive unfunded tax cuts to pass through reconciliation in 2001 and 2003. Parliamentarian MacDonough followed their precedent in 2017. The “merely incidental” rule has not been consistently tied to sponsors’ purposes. Even if the Parliamentarian was writing on a clean slate, a purposivist standard for interpreting the “merely incidental” rule would be a serious mistake. Here, she could learn two important points from judicial approaches to statutory interpretation. First, as Justice Scalia notes in A Matter of Interpretation, purpose is almost never unitary. Some of the immigration provisions’ sponsors likely have primarily non-fiscal purposes, but others just as surely are driven by the desire to have the government stop further impoverishing immigrant communities by collecting, or over-collecting, taxes from them while denying them the benefits those taxes fund. The Parliamentarian has no possible way of knowing which purpose predominates among supporters or, indeed, which purpose drives any given senator. Surely an identical provision cannot be “merely incidental” when offered by a civil rights-oriented senator but permissible when offered by one with a redistributive (i.e., fiscal) motivation. Even on the much more copious record available once a bill has been enacted into law, Justice Scalia warns that divining a unitary or even predominant congressional purpose is a fool’s errand. Second, when interpreting statutes – which is what the Parliamentarian is doing when she applies section 313(b)(1)(D) – courts commonly employ a super-strong form of stare decisis. Because Congress can readily amend a statute that it believes the courts are misapplying, the value of consistency in application supersedes the importance of reaching what the current adjudicator believes is the “best” interpretation. This is all the more true when interpreting the Congressional Budget Act, which governs repeat players who alternate between the sponsor’s and objector’s roles. Thus, even if the Parliamentarian believes that purposivism is the best method for applying the “merely incidental” rule, consistency is more important. During consideration of the 2017 tax cut reconciliation bill, the Parliamentarian ruled that Republicans could include a measure opening the sensitive Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The fiscal impact of that provision was much smaller than that of the current immigration changes, and it obviously was motivated by the desire to resolve a question of environmental regulation in favor of the oil companies rather than bring in revenues. Yet she did not attempt a purposivist analysis of that provision shoe-horned into legislation otherwise uninterested in federal lands. People who know her tell me she now regrets that decision, but she made it, and as a result that provision is now law. Whatever the merits of a consistent purposivist approach, an episodic one is both unjust and unhelpful to building respect for the Senate’s procedural traditions and the Parliamentarian’s office. Even if her decision on the Wildlife Refuge was a mistake, she now should continue making similar “mistakes” and allow Congress to enact a correction if it disagrees. Some are calling for circumventing the Parliamentarian. In theory, this could be done by having the presiding officer – Vice President Harris or a Democratic senator – overrule a point of order against the immigration provisions of the reconciliation bill notwithstanding the Parliamentarian’s advice. Formally, the power to make these rulings resides in the presiding officer, not the parliamentarian. This would, however, be a radical break from longstanding Senate procedure where knowledge of parliamentary procedure has been considered irrelevant to serving as presiding officer because the real decisions are made by the parliamentarian. It would effectively obliterate all Senate rules as it would empower the majority party, or the vice president, to ignore those rules at will. Although the case against the Parliamentarian’s rejection of the immigration proposals is strong, one can readily imagine future Republican presiding officers making completely nonsensical rulings to evade rules that have gotten in their way. An electorate that was mostly oblivious to Senator McConnell and President Trump packing the Supreme Court would surely not punish these far more nuanced transgressions. Democrats also could circumvent this ruling by firing Elizabeth MacDonough and appointing a new parliamentarian inclined to overrule the point of order. Because the merits of this ruling are so dubious, Democrats would have little trouble finding a credible replacement who would wholeheartedly agree with their position. Moreover, precedent exists for such a move: Republicans once fired a parliamentarian whom they themselves had installed for showing too much independence. This, too, would rapidly result in a lawless Senate. Firing the parliamentarian felt sufficiently transgressive in 2001 that Republicans felt obliged to reinstall the previous parliamentarian, who had originally been installed by Democrats and who was emphatically not a hack. If Democrats fire Parliamentarian MacDonough, one can be confident that, no matter how competent her replacement may be, the next Republican majority will install a Sidney Powell clone to replace that person. Democrats rightly criticized Trump Administration officials, such as former Attorney General William Barr, for focusing their loyalty on their party rather than their country. We do not need a proliferation of partisan hacks in positions charged with exercising impartial judgment to uphold systemic values. Parliamentarian MacDonough is wrong in this ruling, but there is absolutely no reason to believe her rulings are anything but sincere. Remarkably, some progressives are using this ruling as further justification for eliminating the filibuster. With an assertive right-wing supermajority on the Supreme Court, strong indications that gerrymandering will put the House of Representatives in Republican hands for most of the coming decade, and polls suggesting that Democrats’ Senate majority and control of the White House are in grave danger, the filibuster may soon be all that prevents the wholesale gutting of almost a century of social progress. Senator McConnell repeatedly showed his commitment to the filibuster for legislation even when he controlled the Senate and major pieces of the Republican agenda were at stake. But if Democrats tamper with the filibuster now, Senator McConnell will have neither reason to preserve it nor, likely, the ability to persuade his caucus to do so. If Democrats gut Senate rules now, whether by ignoring the Parliamentarian, sacking her, or curtailing the filibuster, no group will be more vulnerable than immigrants. The many victories immigrants’ advocates had against the Trump Administration’s anti-immigrant initiatives overwhelmingly relied on statutes that Republicans could easily gut were it not for the filibuster and limitations on the content of reconciliation bills. This Supreme Court is certainly not going to be extending new constitutional rights to immigrants: very much to the contrary. And even if the Democratic leadership was short-sighted enough to be willing to incur these huge long-term costs to enact a path to citizenship, the simple fact is that these tactics just would not work. For this provision, or any other, to make it into law, it must pass three distinct hurdles: (1) it must be included in the package Senate Majority Leader Schumer brings to the floor; (2) it must survive any points of order that may be raised against it; and (3) it must not be stricken by a Republican floor amendment. The parliamentary struggles have dominated public attention, but even before the Parliamentarian ruled the first time some moderate and conservative Democrats were expressing opposition to including a path to citizenship in Build Back Better. If the Democrats were to bypass the Parliamentarian, those senators would be even less likely to agree to include the path to citizenship in the base package and would be all-but-certain to support a Republican amendment to strike it. The moderate and conservative Democrats have made clear that they see themselves as guardians of Senate traditions; they surely will not abandon those beliefs for a provision they do not like in the first place. Out of all the crucial reforms in Build Back Better, the one I care most about is the path to citizenship. I value it even more than the Child Tax Credit’s expansion (which involves much more money), more than universal pre-K (an provision I worked on significantly), and more than the improvements to food assistance programs that have been central to my professional career. Since the outset of the pandemic, I have spent far more time on immigration issues than on any others. It therefore pains me greatly to say this, but a path to citizenship will not be in Build Back Better. Because the Parliamentarian is focused on provisions’ purposes rather than their particular content, no redraft is likely to change the outcome. And even if it could, the moderate and conservative Democrats will not walk the plank politically to vote down a Republican amendment to strike it. The longer Build Back Better is delayed in search of a magic elixir that could allow the path to citizenship to advance, the more the other provisions of that package will be endangered. And, ultimately, further delay may jeopardize the legislation itself. This battle was lost not so much when the Parliamentarian ruled as when Democrats failed to take the Maine and North Carolina Senate seats in 2020, failed to preserve more of the moderate senators up for re-election in 2018, and failed to win the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Senate races in 2016. No parliamentary gimmicks can patch those fundamental political failures. @DavidASuper1 Posted 5:45 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 |