Skip to main content

John Boehner
Speaker John Boehner has a procedural threat to
the bipartisan Senate Violence Against Women Act.
(Yuri Gripas/Reuters)
House Republicans may have found a potent procedural weapon in their fight to exclude groups of people they don't like from Violence Against Women Act protections, TPM's Brian Beutler reports. The Constitution's Origination Clause requires that revenue-raising bills come from the House, and the bipartisan Senate Violence Against Women Act includes a visa fee for immigrant victims of abuse:
Normally, the Senate can work around this requirement by amending House bills or by using House-passed revenue bills as vehicles for their own legislation. Senate Dems didn’t regard the visa fee as a revenue provision and have thus fallen into a trap. For all intents and purposes they don’t have a bill to bring to a conference committee with House Republicans. They can and may attempt to relegislate VAWA in a way that fulfills the origination requirements — but out of deference to Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could significantly delay or completely block such an effort.

Alternatively, as a top Senate Democratic aide pointed out, House Republicans could simply drop their blue-slip threat, as they did for recent transportation legislation. But Boehner’s not likely to agree to that unless Democrats give up something in return — and at the expense of key Democratic constituencies.

What Republicans still have not gained, however, is the political advantage. They've been on the defensive over the Violence Against Women Act for some time. A procedural argument that though the Senate passed its bill first and though House Republicans recently allowed transportation legislation through despite the same procedural issue the Senate has to take the House bill as its template is unlikely to be one of those rallying cries with which a party effectively gathers independents to its side. The key questions, then, are whether Democrats can continue to hold firm and push the message that it's not acceptable to pass a Violence Against Women Act that intentionally fails to protect some groups because Republicans don't like them, and what hostages Republicans will try to take to extract concessions from Democrats.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This behavior (9+ / 0-)

    has gone beyond mere political advantage to sabotage.  And still the media attempts balance.  

  •  GOP Supports VIolence Against Women!!!!!! (8+ / 0-)


    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:22:15 AM PDT

  •  The GOP Open Season on Women Act (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, Tamar, glorificus

    That's what we should call this bill.  Disgusting!

    A thief thinks everybody else is a thief; a liar thinks everybody else is a liar; and a Republican thinks everybody else is as selfish and heartless as they are.

    by rubyduby7 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:22:56 AM PDT

  •  no problem Obama Vetoes it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Spends the next 5 months saying the GOP doesn't want to protect woman from violence. Elect a democratic congress and we will protect all woman!

    •  He would never veto it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tamar, ivorybill, glorificus

      Because then all of the exisiting protections would disappear too

    •  Here's why he won't veto it. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OldDragon, lgmcp, glorificus

      (1) What MRobDC said above ^^^

      (2) There's enough ignorant fools out there that the GOP will paint themselves as the protectors of women and Obama as the narrowly partisan career politician willing to through women under the bus for a little short-term political advantage.  The GOP will not be hurting for cash.  And voters, historically, can be fooled into believing almost anything.  Obama doesn't want to be on record vetoing a Violence Against Women Act in an election year.  Plenty of suburban soccer moms will suck in the propaganda and believe it.  We are aware and energized on this issue - most assuredly, independent low information voters are not.

      Obama should veto.  He won't.  Chalk this up to another self-inflicted error on our part, combined with real malevolence on the part of the GOP.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:51:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Will be an interesting 'test' case... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, glorificus, cybersaur

    To see if the Dems have learned their lesson yet and hold firm, or fall back to the failed tactic of concession in hope that they'll be able to make a deal with these liars.

    Hey, how's that 'debt ceiling' deal working out?

    Romney 2012 - My mission, after Apple School, is to win the rodeo. I have a penguin doing roofie in my bathroom; come on over, we'll put on Zeppelin and eat cheddar cheese!

    by Fordmandalay on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:30:06 AM PDT

    •  Something must eventually happen here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I agree with you on how the debt ceiling deal is "working out".  The congress and senate can and will do whatever they want with this, of course.  Too many avenues set up in D.C. politics to force the so-called "agreement" from happening.  Good post.

      The "deals" that go on in our nation's capital have kept good policy and good legislation from happening.  I doubt there's many people here that can disagree with this other than presenting some "exception" to it.

  •  We have laws that need to be enforced (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We can come us with laws upon laws that are against violence against women, but if they aren't enforced, they mean squat.

    In America, we already have laws against violence of women.  The problem isn't the number of laws, it is the enforcement of those laws that should come into question.

    I know that suggesting further laws in this respect is a good campaign strategy, but without enforcement, nothing that is suggested or actually put into law and ENFORCED will make a difference.  

    •  Hey what about women voilence against men??? (0+ / 0-)

      My ex-wife one time violently shook our oldest daughter when she was  2 1/2 years old(she's 29 now),I walked in on it pulled my ex-wife away from our little one ,the ex then came at me with a broken coke bottle.The department of family & children got involved she had to undergoe counseling but then when we divorced about 5 years later she still got the kids though I was able to take them away about 5 years after that. All the divorce court cared about was if the child support got paid so the tax-payers weren't out anything.

         All violence needs to be eliminated!!!!

  •  If that's the case, (0+ / 0-)

    the Senate just doesn't take up the House bill.  The Senate has done that before. Why can't they do that now?  If the Violence Against Women Act doesn't get re-approved then who will be blamed???  It's just like the Bush tax cuts.  So what if taxes go up on ALL Americans.  At least the government will finally have enough money to take care of some of the debt and not have to make cuts to dire programs and benefits.

    Geeeez this isn't a friggin' game, folks.  This bill affects REAL lives.  These Republicans need to grow up, stop playing games and start working to add jobs and protections for the American people.  

    But if they continue to want to play games, then just let them play them.  Democrats don't have to participate.

    •  Can you imagine the push back on this? (0+ / 0-)
      It's just like the Bush tax cuts.  So what if taxes go up on ALL Americans.  At least the government will finally have enough money to take care of some of the debt and not have to make cuts to dire programs and benefits.
      This would mean increased taxes on some lower and most lower-income people.  That's not something that the Obama administration would EVER present and you have to know that the Mittens isn't going there as well.  

      The rest of your post is pretty dead on, though.

      •  What push back? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OldDragon, Samer

        I am considered poor.  In fact sometimes I don't know how I survive.  But I'm willing to pay more taxes (yes I still pay taxes).  It won't be much more.  But if this is what it takes to get rid of the Bush tax cuts then so be it.  

        I'm a little sick and tired of being held hostage for Republican antics and Grover Norquist who actually runs the Republican party.  The Republicans are not going to agree to raising taxes on their on.  Letting the Bush Tax Cuts die is the only way.  

        •  Everyone pays taxes (0+ / 0-)

          Sales taxes, gasoline taxes, real estate taxes and a great many more taxes.

          But, the discussion is about Federal taxes, of course.  And, if you're "considered poor", you don't pay those taxes.

          Not sure what level of income you have, but if the Bush taxes are recinded, you'll pay federal taxes depending on your income and a great number of "middle class" that do not now pay income taxes will too.

          Argue it all you want, it's just a fact.  

  •  Interesting that Boehner can't get his own (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skyounkin, OldDragon, Samer

    legislation passed in the House, but can "outwit" the Senate in order to undermine a bill that protects women.
    Boehner's not all that bright -- someone else must have come up with this.
    But the Dems could handle it by saying the Republicans are holding the safety of women hostage in order to make sure several groups of women have no protection.
    Yeah, the Republicans are "extraordinarily pro-woman" alright.

    We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

    by Tamar on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:42:54 AM PDT

  •  UpOrDownVoteUpOrDownVoteUpOrDownVote! <n/t> (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Plastic People, Oh Baby Now, Yer sucha Draaaag

    by jds1978 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:53:35 AM PDT

  •  Good question, but never underestimate... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skyounkin, glorificus

    ...the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

  •  Welcome to America (4+ / 0-)

    land of the free, home of the Republicans who can fuck women over with an obscure technicality.  I hope Cantor is proud of his accomplishment -- and Boehner has a great day on the golf course during yet another week off.


    Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:56:10 AM PDT

  •  Could anyone hate more than the Republicans? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, glorificus, cybersaur

    Could anyone hate women more?  They want us silent, pregnant, and not voting.

    The woman with the maroon hair had fallen to her knees and was asking the sky, “What I done wrong, God? Tell me, Lord. I been good.” “You’re kneeling on Rex’s grave!” Ignatius shouted.

    by gracielove on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:56:41 AM PDT

  •  In an Election Year this is a Rhetorical Cudgel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If Dems are smart, they will pick it up and start beating the crap out of republicans.

    But the GOP has left these kinds of clubs strewn all over the floor the last few years. Very few have been used.

  •  Why are Democrats so bad at this game? (0+ / 0-)

    I am so sick of stories like this, showing Democrats to be absolutely clueless about how the Republicans roll.
    When will they quit being such dimwits?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site