From Jottings:
It will be interesting indeed if they can get Specter on board.
The article headline is of course a reference to the 60 votes that it takes to break a filibuster in the Senate.
My current thought, some version of EFCA passes, but not the current one and probably not as soon as first feared.
I agree with his analysis that some version of EFCA passes. Specter faces not only a challenge from the Democrats, but he narrowly escaped a primary defeat in 2004, and his challenger is back. Remember, no Republicans actually have to vote for passage, just for cloture. That makes Specter, Snowe, and Collins—the only “moderate” Republicans left—an extremely powerful bloc.
Fox’s link to Ambinder prompts us to consider the source. Ambinder seems very much to chase phantom controversies. Trying to boil the Senate down to whip counts oversimplifies the dynamics of the place, where each senator can place anonymous holds, and floor amendments are allowed and voted on.
It’s also worth pointing out that a number of Democrats are very unlikely to actually vote for passage of the bill, even if they support “an up or down vote.” But I think for cloture, you have to look to the 2010 elections and the dynamics there.
On the legal side, or at least on the counseling side, it’s worth pointing out that the Province of Ontario has card-check recognition, and they saw no acceleration in unionization since its enactment. And until we see what, if any, bill comes out, I don’t think there’s much to do, except, you know, use shock and awe marketing and have lots of CLE seminars.
{ 1 trackback }
Comments on this entry are closed.