Topic speaks for itself. Filibustering has changed from a Mr. Smith Goes To Washington endurance fest to a simple act of the rules thus requiring a supermajority to pass much legislation. Back when the Republicans were in power, Bill Frist decryed Democratic filibusters as the “Tyranny of the Minority”. Now that the Republicans are in the minority, they have become the most obstructionist minority party in Senate history, blowing away previous records for most filibusters. The Senate is becoming a place where any piece of slightly controversial legislation requires a supermajority to pass.
Personally, I always thought that the idea of a procedural filibuster was a crock. I’m not in love with the idea of filibustering period but at least if a guy wants to block up the works by reading the Summa Theologica from page 1 onwards, he has to invest something into it. If he (or he and his allies) want to block it up for five days, they can make sure it’s public knowledge that the Senate has done nothing for five days because Senator Jones was reading the Yellow Pages rather than allowing legislation to go to a vote.
Is there a good reason to keep the procedural filibuster? I know that neither party wants to let go because someday they’ll be the minority and want a chance to jack things up but does it really serve a purpose beyond letting the minority party cause problems with little backlash?
The filibuster rules should be left as they are. If the proposed legislation is controversial enough to provoke a filibuster, it ought to take a super-majority to pass it. The public remedy lies at the polls.
The original filibuster was tolerable because it was such a hassle it was rarely used. It gave the minority a last resort to block legislation they felt really passionately about, but it was such a high-profile grandstanding move that you couldn’t do it very often without coming off as hopelessly obstructionist. Now the minority can block anything it has the slightly quibble with without suffering any consequences.
As things stand now, why shouldn’t the minority always ‘invoke’ (I’m sure that’s not the right word) a filibuster? If you can force a supermajority margin by just asking for it or by actually pulling the stunt of a real filibuster, why not change the rules to just require a supermajority to pass anything?
Yes, the closure rules need to be changed. No, it isn’t going to happen any time soon. The minority will never support it and the majority, even if they get an overwhelming number of seats, will remember when they needed the threat.
What makes it worse than ever is the level of absolute partisanship that echos throughout Congress. Going for the filibuster won’t hurt either party politically because their constituents will see it as “Standing up to those evil [other party]!”
Party loyalists don’t decide elections, swing voters do. A candidate could win my vote by filibustering something stupid, or by supporting something good.
I’d agree if what existed was an actual, boldface-type inducing, Filibuster. What we get with the current rules is a “filibuster” – there need not be a high level of controversy at all to provoke one.
IMHO, the procedural filibuster should be abolished.
Let’s see if the Republicans can learn to compromise.
If so, we can leave the current system in place.
If instead, they turn into a reincarnation of the obstructionists of 94, it’ll be time to make them work for their livings.
Except that that’s not how it works at all. Currently, Republicans filibuster anything they dislike at all. Controversiality is not a requirement. Part of the reason for this is that filibustering is so easy: all you have to do is enter your request, and boom, the threshold moves up ten votes. Make it hard. Make it cost, and mean, something.
According to Wiki, the senate majority leader may require a verbal filibuster. Why don’t they? Mere pansy fear they they themselves are not up to the task?
The remedy for that lies in the polls, as I stated. If the country as a whole wanted a filibuster proof majority, they would have voted one in to office.
I don’t like the idea that the filibuster has become a standard requirement, rather than a major event.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure that requiring 60 votes for any legislation is such a terrible idea. If you can’t convince 60% of the senate to pass a bill, go back to the damned drawing board.
The filibuster should go the way of the passenger pigeon. Dying in St. Louis. Barring that, it should require psychos reading the phone book. Barring that, it should require that 40 Senators refuse to close debate, rather than 60 Senators voting to Close debate.
The Constitution has plenty of other protections against hasty legislation and trampling of minority rights. We have a bicameral Congress, a separately elected executive, a Bill of Rights, and an independent judiciary with power to declare laws unconstitutional. We have supermajority requirements in cases where they are warranted–treaties, constitutional amendments, veto overrides, and removals from office.
To add a supermajority requirement in the Senate for every single piece of legislation, on top of all these other requirements, is lunacy. No one would have supported such a provision if it were proposed in 1787, or any time since. It’s a recipe for inaction and inertia.
I’m sorry, but that’s simply a silly sentiment. Obviously, if all other things were equal between candidates, obtaining/preventing a filibuster-proof majority would be a valid consideration. But competing candidates simply cannot be that similar (except on Futurama).
Unpacking your thought, the implication I draw is that filibustering should be elevated to a primary consideration in one’s vote and, conversely, that other things should be devalued. Doing so is not just silly, but it kind of cheapens elected office, donchya think?
You’re reading more into what I said than I intended. The country remains sharply divided between Dems and Pubbies. Even some states are sharply divided. There is not a national agreement that the country should head in one direction over another. I’d like to see more unity, but at the same time, I believe one party rule is a bad thing. If a legislative proposal from either side of the aisle truly has merit, it should gain enough support to pass. If it doesn’t, the voters should throw the partisan hacks out.
Have you considered the possibility that inaction and inertia might be better than doing things that a significant fraction of the Senate thinks is a bad idea?
The filibuster is not part of the constitution. Furthermore, it was never part of Senate tradition that any bill should require a supermajority of 60 to pass. That’s a more recent development: in theory, the filibuster was meant to involve principled stances: it was suppose to be used sparingly.
A filibuster is a mechanism of good governance, invoked by responsible elected officials if and when a matter comes up that is consequential enough to halt the normal legislative process. I believe that filibuster procedure, on the other hand, is determined by the rules committees.
To lay that at the feet of “the voters”, as if the method of invocation should ever rise to a level of voter concern, is just plain silly. It’s a sad state of affairs that obstructionism is so easy that it’s becoming just such an issue. And it should be changed.