[lbo-talk] good news for unions?

Steven L. Robinson srobin21 at comcast.net
Thu Oct 16 10:20:52 PDT 2008


Well, the Dems had a similar - may be larger- majority after the LBJ landslide but no repeal of Taft Hartley was forthcoming, despite repeated promises. Similar situations prevailed in the mid 1970s when the Dems had a dreaded (by the Repugs that is) "veto proof" Congress.

The worrisome thing would not be a fillibuster, but the measure getting bottled up in some committee and not coming to a vote. The more business friendly Dems might not dare to fillibuster or even vote against it, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't fight behind the scenes to stall or stop it.

All that said, I certainly hope you are right about what is likely to occur this time. SR

-------------- Original message -------------- From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com>


> No, that's the whole point. A 60 seat Senate isn't a mere majority, it's
> a supermajority. The Dems who would vote against it would still vote
> against it. But there would be enough left over to pass it. And most
> importantly, it would be filibuster proof. None of the Dems who would
> vote against it would filibuster against it. That's beyond the party
> pale.
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list