Legislative obstructionism

Annual Review of Political Science

Volumn 13, Issue , 2010, Pages 297-319

  Wawro, Gregory J ^a   Schickler, Eric ^b  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Filibuster; Nuclear option; Path dependency; Pivotal politics; Public opinion; U.S. Senate

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952926547     PISSN: 10942939     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.040108.105759     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Alter AB, McGranahan LM. 2000. Reexamining the filibuster and proposal powers in the Senate. Legis. Stud. Q. 25(2):259-284
2. Bawn K, Koger G. 2003. Effort, intensity and position taking: reconsidering obstruction in the pre-cloture Senate. J. Theor. Polit. 20(1):67-92
3. Berinsky AJ. 2006. American public opinion in the 1930s and 1940s: the analysis of quota-controlled sample survey data. Public Opin. Q. 70(4):499-529
4. Berinsky AJ, Schickler E. 2006. The American mass public in the 1930s and 1940s. Natl. Sci. Found. Collab. Res. Grant. http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/ nsf.pdf
5. Binder SA. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
6. Binder SA, Lawrence ED, Smith SS. 2002. Tracking the filibuster, 1917 to 1996. Am. Polit. Res. 30(4):406-422
7. Binder SA, Madonna AJ, Smith SS. 2007. Going nuclear, Senate style. Perspect. Polit. 5(4):729-740
8. Binder SA, Smith SS. 1997. Politics or Principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
9. Burdette FL. 1940. Filibustering in the Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
10. Caldeira GA. 1987. Public opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDR's court-packing plan. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 81(4):1139-1153
11. Conda C. 2006. The "Gang of 14" compromise was a victory for the GOP. Roll CallMay 2, p. 8
12. CQ Almanac. 1949. Limitation of debate. CQ Almanac, pp. 583-87.Washington, DC: Congr. Q.
13. CQ Almanac. 1959. Senate rules change. CQ Almanac, pp. 212-14.Washington, DC: Congr. Q.
14. CQ Almanac. 1963. Criticism of Congress provokes few changes. CQ Almanac, pp. 373-76.Washington, DC: Congr. Q.
15. Crowley M. 2005. The day after. New Republic Apr. 18, p. 10
16. Delli Carpini MX, Keeter S. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
17. DeSantis V. 1969. Republicans Face the Southern Question. New York: Greenwood
18. Dion D. 1997. Turning the Legislative Thumbscrew. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
19. Dion D, Boehmke FJ, MacMillan W, Shipan CR. 2008. Are filibusters informative?Work. pap., Univ. Mich.
20. Dixit AK. 2004. Lawlessness and Economics: Alternative Modes of Governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
21. Fudenberg D, Tirole J. 1991. Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
22. Gallup AM. 1999. The Gallup Poll Cumulative Index: Public Opinion, 1935-1997. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resour.
23. Gallup GH. 1972a. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971. Vol.II, 1949-1958. New York: Random House
24. Gallup GH. 1972b. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1959-1971. Vol.III, 1959-1971.New York: Random House
25. Gilmour JB. 1995. The contest for Senate cloture reform, 1949-1975. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Chicago
26. Gold MB, Gupta D. 2004. The constitutional option to change Senate rules and procedures: a majoritarian means to overcome the filibuster. Harvard J. Law Public Policy 28(1):206-272
27. Johnson TR, Roberts JM. 2005. Pivotal politics, presidential capital, and Supreme Court nominations. Congress Presidency 32(1):31-48
28. Kelly A, Van Houweling R. 2009. Roll calls, constituents, and representation: results from a survey experiment. Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., Toronto
29. King G, Tomz M,Wittenberg J. 2000. Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 44(2):347-361
30. Koger G. 2002. Obstruction in the House and Senate. PhD thesis, Univ. Calif. Los Angeles
31. Koger G. 2007. Filibuster reform in the Senate, 1913-17. In Process, Party and Policy Making: Further New Perspectives on the History of Congress, ed.DWBrady,MDMcCubbins, 2:205-225 Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
32. Koger G. 2008. Filibustering and majority rule in the Senate: the contest over judicial nomination, 2003-2005. In Why Not Parties?, ed. NW Monroe, JM Roberts, DW Rohde, pp. 159-181 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
33. Koger G, Noel H. 2009. The contest for majority cloture in the Senate, 1949-1975: an analysis of senators'ps. Presented at Annu. Meet. Southern Polit. Sci. Assoc., New Orleans, Louisiana
34. Krehbiel K. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
35. Krehbiel K. 1998. Pivotal Politics. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
36. Krehbiel K. 2007. Supreme Court appointments as a move-the-median game. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51(2):231-240
37. Mayhew DR. 2003. Supermajority rule in the U.S. Senate. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 36(1):31-36
38. New York Herald. 1891a. Debate the closure in the Senate. Jan. 23, p. 4
39. New York Herald. 1891b. A vice president useful in certain emergencies. Jan. 24, p. 1
40. New York Herald. 1891c. Goodby, closure, goodby, Force Bill. Jan. 27, p. 3
41. New York Times. 1890. Comfort for Harrison. Nov. 6, p. 1
42. New York Tribune. 1891a.Washington gossip: Senator Jones on the election bill. Jan. 19, p. 7
43. New York Tribune. 1891b. Republicans in control. Jan. 23, p. 1
44. Overby LM, Bell LC. 2004. Rational behavior or the norm of cooperation? Filibustering among retiring senators. J. Polit. 66(3):906-924
45. Poole KT, Rosenthal HL. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
46. Primo DM, Binder SA, Maltzman F. 2008. Who consents? Competing pivots in federal judicial selection. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 52(3):471-489
47. Rohde DW, Shepsle KA. 2007. Advising and consenting in the 60-vote Senate: strategic appointments to the Supreme Court. J. Polit. 69:664-677
48. Schickler E. 2001. Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
49. Sinclair B. 2002. The "60-vote Senate." In U.S. Senate Exceptionalism, ed. BI Oppenheimer, pp. 241-261 Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press
50. Taylor A. 2001. Law designed for curbing deficits becomes GOP tool for cutting taxes. Congr. Q. Wkly. Rep., Apr. 7, p. 770
51. Taylor AJ. 2006. Size, power, and electoral systems: exogenous determinants of legislative procedural choice. Legis. Stud. Q. 31(3):323-345
52. Tirole J. 1988. The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
53. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Rules and Administration. 1985. Senate Cloture Rule. Committee Print, no.99-95, 99th Cong., 1st sess.
54. Washington Post. 1890a. No gag for the Senate. Aug. 11, p. 1
55. Washington Post. 1890b. Mr.Wolcott's speech. Dec. 31, p. 7
56. Washington Post. 1891a. By aid of the chair. Jan. 23, p. 2
57. Washington Post. 1891b. To close the debate. Jan. 26, p. 1
58. Wawro G, Schickler E. 2004. Where's the pivot? Obstruction and lawmaking in the pre-cloture Senate. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 48(4):758-774
59. Wawro G, Schickler E. 2006. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the United States Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
60. Wawro GJ, Schickler E. 2007. Cloture reform reconsidered. In Process, Party and Policy Making: Further New Perspectives on the History of Congress, 2:226-248 Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press