Majority of the majority

Hastert’s position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats’ influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year’s intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if “the majority of the majority” supports them.


So then a quarter of the house (or less in the case of the intelligence bill) will decide all resolutions. The bit problem is how temporary their power is, further it seems a greater sign of weakness than anything else. What threat are they reacting to, why do they need this? For Democrats this is good news, hubris corruption and all that. The Republican Majority is slipping.

So they’re talking about getting rid of the filibuster in the senate - where a minority of 40 of 100 (40%) can block legislation - and adding a filibuster in the house - where a minority of ~100 of 435 (25%) can block legislation. But they have to be in the majority party.

The mind boggles.