‘MAJORITY OF THE MAJORITY’: AKA The ‘Hastert Rule’! Just One More Republican Anti-American, Self-Serving Duplicitous Ploy You May Not Know About! Is This FAIR To Americans? You Tell Me! Democrats Have No ‘Hastert” Rule – This Is A Republican Only Thing, Much Like Voter Caging, Right-To-Work Laws, Filibuster & Other Undemocratic Constipation Of The American Politic Maneuvers.


Majority of the majority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Dennis Hastert explicitly adopted the majority of the majority rule after becoming Speaker of the House.


The majority of the majority is a governing principle (not a legal procedure) used by Republican Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to effectively limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House.[1] Under the majority of the majority doctrine, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.[2] This is sometimes referred to as the Hastert Rule,[3] as its introduction is widely credited to former Speaker Dennis Hastert (1999-2007). However, Newt Gingrich, who directly preceded Hastert as Speaker (1995-1999), followed the same rule.[4] Hastert was vocal in his support of the rule stating that his job was “to please the majority of the majority.”[5]


In practical terms, this has generally kept the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a small number of members of the majority party. It takes 218 votes to pass a bill. Even when there are 218 votes to pass a bill, the rule prevents votes from taking place when those 218 votes do not include a majority of the majority party. If the Democrats are the minority party and the Republicans are the majority party, under the majority of the majority rule it would not be possible for 170 Democrats and 50 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 50 Republicans votes is far short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.[6] As an example, if the Republican Party is the majority party and has 234 seats in Congress, it would have to be known that there were 118 (117+1) Republican votes in support of legislation before a vote on the legislation would be scheduled. With less than 118 Republican votes, the legislation would be blocked even if 218 or more votes could be found between the two parties.


A discharge petition signed by 218 members (or more) from any party is the only way to force consideration of a bill that does not have the support of the Speaker. However, discharge petitions are rarely successful, as a member of the majority party defying their party’s leadership by signing a discharge petition can expect retribution from the leadership.



To date, no Democratic Speaker of the House has used the majority of the majority rule.[citation needed]



Speakers’ views of the rule

  • Tip O’Neill (Speaker from 1977-1987): According to John Feehery, a Hastert aide and speechwriter who coined the term “majority of the majority,” O’Neill let the Republicans “run the floor” because he didn’t have the votes and because he believed that if he gave then-president Ronald Reagan “enough rope, he would end up strangling himself.”[7]


  • Tom Foley: (1989-1995): In 2004, on the PBS NewsHour, Foley said, “I think you don’t want to bring bills to the floor that a majority of your party is opposed to routinely but sometimes when a great issue is at stake, I think you need to do that.”[8]


  • Newt Gingrich (1995-1999): Although the majority-of-the-majority rule had not been articulated at the time, Gingrich followed it in practice.[4]


  • Dennis Hastert (1999 – 2007): In 2003 Hastert said, “On occasion, a particular issue might excite a majority made up mostly of the minority. Campaign finance is a particularly good example of this phenomenon. [But] the job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority.”[5]


  • Nancy Pelosi (2007 – 2011): In May 2007 Pelosi said, “I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus.”[9]


  • John Boehner (2011 – current): In December 2012 Boehner told his caucus in a conference call “I’m not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes” and that did not have the support of the majority of the Republican caucus. [10][11] Nonetheless, Boehner allowed a vote on January 1, 2013 on the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (also known as the “fiscal cliff bill”) with only 85 out of 241 Republicans in favor (a support level of only 35%) and the bill passed with the support of 90% of Democrats (172 out of 191).[12][13] The bill’s passage marked the first time in more than ten years that a measure passed a Republican-controlled House when opposed by a majority of House Republicans.[14] In response, former House Speaker Hastert criticized Boehner for not adhering to the “majority of the majority” governing principle by saying, “Maybe you can do it once, maybe you can do it twice, but when you start making deals when you have to get Democrats to pass the legislation, you are not in power anymore.”[15][16] Two weeks later, on January 15, 2013, Boehner allowed a vote on aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy to take place without the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. [17] The vote passed with 249 votes, but only 49 of the votes were from Republicans or a mere 21% of the majority.[18] Since then some notable Republicans have publicly questioned whether the “majority of the majority” rule is still viable or have proposed jettisoning it altogether.[18][19][20] In spite of all the criticism, on February 28, 2013 Boehner brought a third bill for a vote on the floor of the house which did not have support of majority of Republicans. The bill, an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, received the vote of only 38% of the Republicans in the House of Representatives.[21]


Benefits and drawbacks


Commentators note that there are pros and cons to the “majority of the majority” rule. On the positive side, it ensures that no legislative proposal will counter to the wishes of the majority of the Speaker’s caucus.[1] It also all but ensures that the Speaker will keep his or her job.[4] On the negative side, when combined with a systematic effort to marginalize the influence of the minority power, it can lead to a breakdown of the legislative process, radicalization of the members of the minority party, and legislation that does not reflect the broadest view and area of agreement.[1]


Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, an opponent of the rule, has said the rule is a major reason why bills passed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate are often not later introduced in the House.[6] He has also said that, as Speaker of the House, “you are the party leader, but you are ratified by the whole House. You are a constitutional officer,” and that at crucial times a speaker must put the House ahead of his or her party.[5]


Slate Magazine blogger Matthew Yglesias has contended that the rule, while flawed, is better than the alternatives and that the dynamic prior to its adoption was “a weird kind of super-empowerment of the Rules committee that allowed it to arbitrarily bottle up proposals.”[22]


TABACCO: You have no idea to what lengths the Republican Politicians will stoop to GET WHAT THEY WANT, regardless what Rank & File Democrats or Rank & File Republicans think! This really is the PARTY OF BIG BUSINESS! Just check out where the Majority of their Reelection Campaign Donations come from if you doubt that!


The GOP is no longer the ‘Party of Lincoln’ – hell, it isn’t even the ‘Party of Theodore Roosevelt’ and never was! Teddy only became President through a STRATEGIC REPUBLICAN MISTAKE! The TITANS OF INDUSTRY (John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt etc) wanted to put the “Trust Buster” in a spot where he had no power – V.P. of the USA!


But President McKinley was assassinated, and guess who ascended to the Throne! That’s right, Theodore Roosevelt – Big Business’ Pariah!


Since those “Let’s get rid of Teddy Days even if we lose the White House to Woodrow Wilson”, the Republican Party has gotten progressively more PRO-BUSINESS, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, ANTI-MIDDLECLASS, ANTI-BLACK!


Ask yourself how the Republican Party could control the House of Representatives when it got fewer Votes than the Democratic Party in 2012! The Answer is







Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.


Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!


In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.

T.A.B.A.C.C.O.  (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People



Subdomain re Exploited Minority Long Island community



This entry was posted in Bush, class war, compromise, deregulation, disaster capitalism, GOP, hypocrisy, illicit drugs, knowledge is power, Obama, outsourcing, political ping pong, Politics, socialism4richcapitalism4poor, sophistry, takebackamerica, warpeace and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>