Reid amendment adopted.

Coburn Bunning absent.

So, assuming the vote on final passage tracks this one, not a single Democrat decided to vote against the bill on the substance.  I guess I’m mildly surprised.  It would have been a principled stance to say that you were against the bill but in favor of letting it come to a vote.  I guess I wish I were surprised that no Republican took that stance; instead, they stood shoulder-to-shoulder for obstruction, all the way.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

3 thoughts on “60-39”

  1. but wasn't there also a 60-vote threshold on the amendment's adoption? I'm not 100% sure but I think there was an agreement that the substitute needed 60 to be adopted.

  2. Mark: "I guess I’m mildly surprised."

    Color me soundly surprised; both for that, and for the fact that Nelson/Lieberman ceased their tag-team obstruction (at least for now; I expect them to resume with the conference bill).

  3. It may be that the Democrats are so annoyed at the Republican obstructionism that they'll maintain their voting block despite their normal stances. I mean, Feingold even voted for some war money the other day, just to keep the process moving.

Comments are closed.