NPR's Fresh Air 2/16/05 [Filibustering judicial nominees]

[PunditLisa]

Actually, Terry Gross and her interviewees are seldom in the same studio. Terry pretty much stays at WHYY. I don’t know for sure about this case.

Gross was on David Letterman a few months ago pedaling her book. She said that she prefers guests to be at another site because she wants to experience the interview the way her audience would. She lamented the fact that this precludes her from meeting interesting people (I believe she mentioned John Travolta?) but thinks that being physically apart makes a better program.

I have enjoyed Fresh Air for over 10 years now but regret Gross’ recent fixation on politics. Her interview with Lynn Cheney was embarrassing. Gross purportedly had Cheney on the show to discuss her books on American history, but quickly shifted gears and focused on gay rights (because Cheney’s daughter is gay). Several times, Cheney said, with varying degrees of politeness, that while the Republican party supported a ban on gay marriage, she privately didn’t support it and “and that is all I’m going to say on the matter.” Gross wasn’t satisfied with that answer and kept harping on it again and again and again. “How does it feel to be the parent of a gay daughter and hear the president say it’s immoral?” “As a parent of a gay child, does the Republican agenda make you uncomfortable.” “In your 20 year old novel you write about lesbians…” “What is your reaction to criticism from gays and parents of gays that you haven’t done more to promote gay rights?” Time and time again, Mrs. Cheney said that she wasn’t there to discuss gay rights. It was so obvious that Gross’ politics were coloring her interview that I felt embarrassed for her.

At one point, there was a back and forth exchange about hidden agendas and I wished that Mrs. Cheney would have said, “Terry, before you attack me and my husband for being hypocritical, maybe you should ask yourself what your motive was to invite me on your show. You feign interest in my literary achievements but I think you’ve made crystal clear that you had a hidden motive for inviting me here. Just who is the hypocrite here?”

[BobT]

Terry Gross spoke at the library where I work. She defines the phrase “slight in stature”. I thought she would blow away in a strong breeze.

As for the OP, just when does Gray consider a filibuster to “work”? Does it have to end like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”?

[BrainGlutton]

@Agent Cooper

I do not understand the history of the filibuster, but the idea sounds as if, by design, the founders wanted some way for the minority to not get run over. (or was it maybe added later on?) But isn’t that contrary to the idea of Majority Rule? If The People have been so dumb as to put all the power in one group’s hands, then they deserve to learn the folly of that choice.

What was the intended purpose for the filibuster?

It’s not in the Constitution, only the Senate rules, and it seems to have been based originally on the principle – not all that objectionable on its face – that legislators should be allowed as much time as they want to debate a proposal. Perhaps it was not all that obvious at the time that dissenting minority members would find a way to use the right of “unlimited debate” to obstruct action supported by a majority. From http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm:

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster – from a Dutch word meaning “pirate” – became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote – a tactic known as “cloture.”

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

Many Americans are familiar with the hours-long filibuster of Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for “pot-likkers.” Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina’s J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

[Leaper]

@2sense

So there really is no good reason for the GOP to bite the hand that feeds them. Not that they won’t do so, of course. Perhaps they really do think they will be on top forever.

EvilCaptor’s conspiracy theories notwithstanding, many do, because they think that the Democrats have/will completely collapsed, or that they are RIGHT, dammit!

[BrainGlutton]

@Reeder

Frist will change the rules.

And another small bit of democracy will die.

Get used to it.

That’s another thing – if it takes a 60-40 majority to call cloture on a filibuster, what majority does it take to change the Senate’s procedural rules? I can’t find that on the Senate’s website.

[BrotherCadfael]

I think the solution is to restore the original rules for a fillibuster – where you had to actually stay on the floor and keep talking continuously.

[2sense]

@BrainGlutton

That’s another thing – if it takes a 60-40 majority to call cloture on a filibuster, what majority does it take to change the Senate’s procedural rules? I can’t find that on the Senate’s website.

Weird. I couldn’t find it either. I’m pretty sure that it takes a 2/3 majority to amend the Rules of the Senate but you would think it would be easy to check that fact.

@BrotherCadfael

I think the solution is to restore the original rules for a fillibuster – where you had to actually stay on the floor and keep talking continuously.

I don’t believe that the rules have been changed though after looking for the rules amendment procedure I don’t really want to spend more time searching through them. But from what I recall the majority can force the minority to keep talking simply by not moving on to other business. The reason this doesn’t occur very often is because there is so much else to consider. It did happen once in the last Congress because the Republicans were trying to make the Dems look like obstructionists. The public didn’t pay much attention so we likely won’t see much more of it unless a hot button topic comes up.