The United States Senate. The esteemed group of distinguished lawmakers that demonstrate to the country how proper parliamentary procedure, voting, discussion, and motions work. And then they act like a group of petulant children by putting on filibusters. Instead of discussing an issue like mature adults and then putting it to a vote, they read phone books into the Congressional Record or chat about unrelated events of the day to delay the issues.
Oh, I read savethefilibuster.org, but it’s all about the current situation with blocking the appointment of judges, not about filibusters themselves. They don’t offer any good arguments for babbling incoherently for hours on end to prevent the taking of a vote.
Filibustering doesn’t seem to belong in any setting more mature than a kindergarten class. It certainly wouldn’t be tolerated in other settings that use parliamentary procedure. Why didn’t we do away with this archaic bit of gameplaying decades ago? Why was it ever allowed in the first place?
Montana, of course. A red state if there ever was one.
The filibuster is a way of ensuring that the minority party still has a moderating influence over a majority that would otherwise run roughshod over everyone. In this, among other ways, the Senate was intended to be a body in which hardline party politics and agendas would be cooled. You’ve probably heard the quaint analogy that the House of Representatives is the cup, and the Senate is the saucer.
Having said that, it’s worth noting that many Repubs object to the nuclear option because in another election or two the shoe might be on the other foot and then they’ll want to be able to filibuster.
I think they should keep the filibuster, but actually make the filibusterees do it, instead of this wimpy “Well, you said you’re going to filibuster, and we don’t have enough votes to invoke cloture, so you win.” Actually make them take the floor and talk.
If we had a multiparty system instead of a two-party system (see this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169&highlight=multiparty), that woud be an even more effective way of preventing the “tyranny of the majority” – because there almost certainly would be no majority party in any legislative chamber, ever, and nothing would get done unless it had the joint support of several very different political camps. Then, the filibuster would be obsolete. But as things stand now, we still need it.
Sure you want to go there? When some Southern segregationists used the filibuster in the '50s and '60s, they just got up and started reading out the text of the election laws of every state – I think one even read out of a telephone book. While that’s going on, nothing else can be discussed on the Senate floor and business grinds to a halt (which might please a Libertarian but is bound to infuriate practically anybody else). It’s a big fat waste of time. If it produces the exact same result as using the filibuster as a mere threat, why bother to call them on it?
Oh, spare me your satirical generalizations. This isn’t about the current situation with the judges, and it’s not a red-blue or republican-democrat issue. You have no idea what my party affiliation is, or even if I have one.
You’re claiming filibusters are required to keep the majority from running roughshod over the minority? How? By requiring a 60% vote to end the filibuster? If you want to make it so 60% is required for a vote instead of 50%, fine. Change it. Don’t make the Senators act like little children (or threaten to act like little children) and pout into a microphone for hours on end.
If you can remove your partisan hat for a moment and look at the question I actually asked, I want to know what a filibuster can possibly accomplish that we can’t accomplish without wasting everybody’s time on nonsense. Somehow, the House of Representatives manages to function without filibusters, as does almost every other body that meets under parliamentary procedure. Why does the Senate need them?
It’s worth noting that the only reason the filibuster is even making headlines these days is because the minority party has no other recourses left to stop what they perceive as roughshod tactics from the majority. In the old days (e.g., the Clinton administration), members of the Senate Judiciary could block a nominee from even getting to the floor simply by using other arcane rules and procedures to deny the nominees, such as requiring both home state senators to sign off on any judicial nominees (Jesse Helms blocked numerous nominees all by himself that way).
These provisions and safeguards were dismantled only after the Republicans got in power; the filibuster is the only tool the minority has left.
Libertarian checking in to confirm BG’s assumption, which I highlighted above.
But even in non-libertarian mode, I think that whole idea of a filibuster is that it is an extraordinary event, not to be invoked lightly. When you make it EASIER to invoke a filibuster, you go counter to that premise. I like that option much better than the “nuclear” option, and I think it gets the majority party most of what they need.
Manhattan, I don’t know the answers to any of your questions and can’t spend more time right now to search. But MT was quite clearly “red” as far as the last national election was concerned.
As of 22-Apr-05 Democrats blocked 10 of Bush’s 52 appeals court nominations through filibuster threats; 34 others were confirmed. In all, 204 of Bush’s first-term judicial nominees were confirmed
Across the nation, 100 federal judgeships are vacant. The president said he has sent 70 nominations to the Senate this year, but lawmakers have acted on only 18 – two of them Friday.
<snip>
Republicans argue that the appointment of judges is more than just a numbers game, that senators are simply fulfilling their constitutional duties by rejecting candidates they believe are unfit for the job.
Yes, I tire of Democrats who once tried to get rid of the filibuster now proclaiming that its sacrosanct.
And you should realize that the situation with Clinton’s judges is not analogous to this one. In 1997 the Republicans were the majority in the Senate and they did not resort to any filibuster to defeat any nominees. Theses nominees did not have the vote of the majority of the Senate and thus they never made it out of committee. It’s not the same as a minority party thwarting the will of the majority, as is the case with Reid and the Democrats.
The traditional procedure (and it’s only tradition, not in the actual Senate rules) of requiring home state senators to sign off on a nominee – known as the “blue slip” procedure* – isn’t quite dead. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both D-Mich., have held up a couple nominees in this fashion.
Of the controversial nominees, Priscilla Owen is from Texas, William G. Myers III is from Idaho. Both states have 100 percent GOP delegations. On the other hand, Janice Rogers Brown is from California, and as far as I know, both Boxer and Feinstein oppose her.
So, yeah, the blue slip is less sacrosanct than it used to be, but it’s not dead.
There’s another “blue slip” procedure that refers to the House’s ability to say no-no to any bill of Senate origin that appropriates or raises funds (their right to do so is in the Constitution). Why both these procedures have the same name has eluded scholars for centuries, nay, millennia.
Because it is a big fat waste of time, and because real filibusters are so time consuming and so physically and emotionally draining for the senators doing them. Right now, there’s no cost for minority senators to use the filibuster, so they can use it whenever they want. They don’t have to worry about actually speaking on the floor for 5 hours, they don’t have to worry about postponing important business they want to see passed. Change it so they have to actually filibuster, and it’ll still be used when there’s a bill or appointment or whatever that a senator finds so horrible he doesn’t want it to pass through, but it won’t be abused.
But, once again, I’m not talking about judicial appointments, or of any one particular use of a filibuster. I’m talking about the filibuster process itself. Is there any reason why it should still exist?
And thanks, Manhattan, for posting your quiz. I’ve yet to figure out the voting patterns in Montana this last election! As Spectre of Pithecanthropus made obvious in his response, the facts don’t particularly interest him. He was just trying to provoke me into a partisan debate when my OP has nothing whatsoever to do with Democrats or Republicans.
Simply put: No. It’s only 60% if the minority Senators feel strongly enough about something to filibuster against it. If they don’t like it, but don’t care enough to filibuster, then the minority must not care that much. Do you see the difference?
You can characterize it as “pouting into a microphone” if you like, but I think it’s a heroic act by someone standing up for their beliefs.
Or Strom Thurmond speaking for 24 hours against a civil rights bill. Or Southern Senators through the 1940’s and 1950’s filibustering aginst anti-lynching legislation.
While I agree the filibuster should remain, don’t try and paint the filibuster as some sort of tool used by noble minorities to protect the weak and downtrodden. It has most often been used by Southern minorities to keep the federal government from interfering in their persecution of blacks.
I guess it’s to prevent mob rule. Tommy Jefferson put it best when he said that “a democracy is nothing more than a mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people can take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Meh. The only choice you have is the size of the mob necessary to rule. As long as you get the required votes, you can write anything you want into the constution. It’s always a trade-off between “mob rule” and not being able to get anything done because you can never get the required super-majority vote.
