Why does the U.S. government still allow filibusters?

[scotandrsn]

Well, since judicial nominees are the reason filibusters are even a topic of discussion at the moment, I’ll use them as an example.

A judicial appointment is a very serious matter, as the appointee may be on the bench for a very long time, and have a lot of influence on law over that period of time. So why are they subject to a simple majority vote, when the gravity of the situation might suggest they ought to have a more conclusive 3/5ths, 2/3rds or 3/4ths vote instead? That way, a sizeable number of Senators opposed to the nomination might influence the outcome even if they were not a majority.

A higher necessary percentage might make it difficult for ANY nominee to gain Senate approval. Fortunately, with the existence of the filibuster, they need not set the bar so high.

Filibusters allow for a minority to influence the proceedings without having to set all vote requirements high to quell them. If they feel that strongly, they can call for a filibuster, and if the larger majority feels that strongly , they can vote for cloture.

It, like so much else in government, is a workable compromise. I find it weird, childish, and in spite of it, am just as happy it exists.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Renob

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.

Well, heroism obviously being in the eye of the beholder.

As to why the filibuster is allowed…it’s an aftereffect. The idea set out when the Constitution was written was that the Senate was to be the cool, deliberative chamber…our version of the House of Lords. The idea was that any legislation proposed by the House could be carefully reviewed and deliberated by the less partisan Senate (because Senators sit for 6 years and were appointed by the state legislatures, the idea was that they were less influenced by the popular will). So, as part of that, and to make sure that the Senate would have the time to carefully review each piece of legislation before it, no time limits were placed on debate. If it took the Senators 5 minutes to debate and vote on a bill, so be it. If it took them 5 weeks, so be it. Of course, some Senators realized, “Hey, this means we can be annoying. If we talk about a bill long enough to prevent it from being voted on, the other side will just withdraw it because they’re tired of all this time being wasted.” And thus was born the filibuster.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@InvisibleWombat

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.

Hmmm…maybe it was the words at the top of the screen–“Great Debates” that confused me. At any rate, I at least tried to post an answer.

[Ravenman]

@Renob

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.

There’s no doubt that filibusters have been associated with blocking the civil rights movement. But to say that the filibuster has “most often” been used to persecute blacks is a quite selective reading of facts.

Now, the civil rights legislation was filibustered for something like 57 days, if memory serves. But both before and since then, filibusters were more commonly used to protect the interest of the states, which is exactly what the Senate was designed to do (and, of course, how the segregationists cloaked their rhetoric).

Alphone D’Amato filibustered a tax bill in 1992 to try to save a typewriter factory in New York. Peter Fitzgerald in 2001 filibustered a defense bill in order to prevent an amendment that would have mandated the expansion of O’Hare International Airport over the objections of some folks from Illinois. Wayne Morse filibustered anti-labor legislation in 1946. He came back in 1953 to filibuster legislation to give states offshore oil drilling rights. I can go on and on, suffice it to say that those instances have nothing at all to do with racism.

As has been noted elsewhere, real filibusters are pretty rare. And the OP’s point about senators being made to look like petulant children is exactly why that is so. If politicians want to make themselves look like fools in order to tilt at windmills or fight against majoritarianism, why should we tell them that they can’t do so? Are you really that concerned with the public image of our politicians?

@InvisibleWombat

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.

You’re missing the point, though. If a 3/5 majority were required to bring something to a vote, there is no cost whatsoever to the minority blocking a vote on something. It would just be that absolutely nothing would happen in the Senate until 3/5 of senators voted that there should be a vote.

With a filibuster, senators have to make their case UNLESS 3/5 vote to end debate. It forces the minority to DO something, rather than sit back and be obstructionist. The public has a chance to either rally to their support, or rally against them and tell them to shut the hell up. Senators have to get up, talk about something, and stand on their feet as long as they can. There’s a physical and political toll that is exacted during a filibuster.

The gridlock that is now occuring in the Senate over judges is a perfect example of this. There is no cost whatsoever for Democrats to filibuster judges, because Republicans are not forcing Democrats to get out there and do a real filibuster. There’s no chance of wearing senators down physically. The chance for backlash against the filibuster has barely emerged, and that’s simply as a result of TV ads and overheated Sunday show rhetoric. Thus, there is gridlock with no chance of breaking it through physical pressure, which would be exactly the case with changing the rules to require a 3/5 vote to approve anything. In my view, the filibuster is fine, as long as it is real. I hate cheap knockoffs.

[BrainGlutton]

@InvisibleWombat

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?

From the Senate’s own website – http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm:

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.

Short answer: Because. So there.

[furt]

@BrainGlutton

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.

Not at all. It’s a big, fat attention-drawing device. If the minority passionately feels what the majority is doing is egregious (as opposed to, say, just something they’re opposed to as a matter of politics), they should have the stones to draw the national media attention a real filibuster would generate.

I submit that the spectacle of senators making such a stand would bring huge attendance to the merits of their case; and the people would start to make their voices heard about whether the majority was in fact going too far or whether the minority was merely being obstinate. As a practical matter, within days of a real filibuster starting, the politics would change enough to resolve the situation one way or the other.

If you want to go with the “libertarians would like it because nothing would happen” idea, a few days of stasis would be nothing compared to extending the use of the filibuster so that, as a practical matter, nothing passes the senate without 60 votes.

[Martin_Hyde]

Simply put the filibuster is an important part of the way our government works. It’s one way (along with lifetime appointed judges) that we can avoid majority factions that rise up for 3-8 years from completely destroying our way of government.

It’s an important safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. And you can point to many countries that don’t have these safeguards, but these are all countries where you either a) have a Westminster style government where one party has near-absolute power for decades, or b) a multiparty system where coalitions form and then have the effect of basically an all-powerful single party for many years.

[Gary_Robson]

So reading pages out of phone books and talking for 24 hours without a bathroom break is an important part of the way our government works? I really have a hard time buying that.

We have a system based on majority votes. Some things require a simple majority (>50%) and others require a 2/3 vote or some other factor. But that’s how the system works. If you boil down what a filibuster does, it basically allows anything over 40% of the Senate to prevent a vote. So build that into the system. “Let’s have a vote on whether we’re going to vote on this bill. Okay, over 40% approve voting. Let’s vote.” Why this childish silliness of a filibuster. What can it possibly accomplish that can’t be done by a straightforward change in the rules?

Or do you really enjoy watching Senators “earn” their salary by making fools of themselves while blocking legislation?

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

And you can point to many countries that don’t have these safeguards, but these are all countries where you either a) have a Westminster style government where one party has near-absolute power for decades, or b) a multiparty system where coalitions form and then have the effect of basically an all-powerful single party for many years.

What is your point? What practical results of the systems you’re describing that should we be afraid of?

BTW, I don’t believe coalition governments are as stable or as monolithic as you’re making them out to be. Quite the contrary. It’s almost impossible to enforce Westminster-style “party discipline” on a multiparty coalition.

[John_Mace]

No, no, no. The filibuster is not just an everyday parliamentary device, It’s SUPPOSED to be used only in exctraordinary circumstances. The minority party needs to be willing to say: this is SO important we think it’s worth shutting down the government over. If you make it too easy, then the minority party can veto everything. Although, thinking about that, maybe it isn’t so bad after all.

[Ravenman]

@InvisibleWombat

. So build that into the system. “Let’s have a vote on whether we’re going to vote on this bill. Okay, over 40% approve voting. Let’s vote.” Why this childish silliness of a filibuster. What can it possibly accomplish that can’t be done by a straightforward change in the rules?

Or do you really enjoy watching Senators “earn” their salary by making fools of themselves while blocking legislation?

Did you read my post? I addressed this question exactly. I also addressed how rare it is to have a real filibuster in which Senators actually take the floor and speak as long as they can. Check it out. Post number 24.

(Nitpick: And you have your numbers reversed. To be logically consistent, over 60% would have to approve of voting on a measure under your proposal.)

[Gary_Robson]

@Ravenman

Did you read my post? I addressed this question exactly…

I did, indeed read it. I don’t feel that legislation affecting the future of our country (or confirmation of Presidential appointments, or whatever) should be determined by whose Senator has a bigger bladder or better physical stamina. We don’t elect Senators based on how long they can stay on their feet. I don’t want to “exact a physical toll” on them. I want them to have a procedure that allows them to discuss the legislation, either pass it or kill it, and move on. We’re talking about the United States Senate here, not some TV reality show. They have a lot of other things to do. Let’s wrap things up and let them handle the next task.

@Ravenman

(Nitpick: And you have your numbers reversed. To be logically consistent, over 60% would have to approve of voting on a measure under your proposal.)

Mea culpa. You’re quite right.

[1010011010]

@InvisibleWombat

I want them to have a procedure that allows them to discuss the legislation, either pass it or kill it, and move on.

“All in favor of moving on to the next task?”
<voting>
“Not 60% in favor of moving on… the debate will continue.”
<crickets>
<lather, rinse, repeat>

And this can happen on every single vote, not just the ones to end a filibuster!

[ExTank]

I overall agree that the filibuster is an important check on “majority abuses;” I also think that whoever invokes it should have to actually follow through on it, even if they’re just reading for 24 hours straight the Chinese take-out menu that delivers to their office .

If they believe in it enough to have it, and to exercise it, then they should believe in it enough to actually do it.

Otherwise it is nothing more than the cheap (yet effective) tool of the petulant and the whiny who are throwing the Senatorial equivalent of a temper tantrum.

But the guy (or gal) who stands up for 24 hours reading out the D.C. phonebook to block something, well…you kind of gotta take them somewhat seriously. You at least have to acknowledge (and maybe respect) that they’ve got an issue that they feel strongly about. Otherwise, it’s just partisan bullshit.

[Martin_Hyde]

@BrainGlutton

What is your point? What practical results of the systems you’re describing that should we be afraid of?

BTW, I don’t believe coalition governments are as stable or as monolithic as you’re making them out to be. Quite the contrary. It’s almost impossible to enforce Westminster-style “party discipline” on a multiparty coalition.

My point is that when you have one party government for extensive periods of time society becomes too monolithic in political thought. Certain ideas move to be consider “completely unacceptable” and they may be legitimate ideas. But they are kept out of the halls of power because when you have a powerful ruling force for decades it begins to shape society. When in a proper functioning government like you find in the United States society tends to shape government.

[Gary_Robson]

@1010011010

“All in favor of moving on to the next task?”
<voting>
“Not 60% in favor of moving on… the debate will continue.”

No, the debate will end, the bill will die, and they’ll move on. That’s what filibusters are all about–a way for a minority to kill legislation that the majority would pass. Many of you seem to feel that the minority should be allowed to do that, so let 'em. If you can’t raise 60% to agree a vote should happen, kill the bill and do something else.

[Ravenman]

@InvisibleWombat

I did, indeed read it. I don’t feel that legislation affecting the future of our country (or confirmation of Presidential appointments, or whatever) should be determined by whose Senator has a bigger bladder or better physical stamina.

You keep talking like filibusters are happening all the time. How many honest-to-God filibusters do you think there have been in the last ten years?

We don’t elect Senators based on how long they can stay on their feet. I don’t want to “exact a physical toll” on them. I want them to have a procedure that allows them to discuss the legislation, either pass it or kill it, and move on. We’re talking about the United States Senate here, not some TV reality show. They have a lot of other things to do. Let’s wrap things up and let them handle the next task.

Talk about missing the point. You proposed a system in which consensus is required to move to a vote on sometime, and I point out that such a proposal would INCREASE the amount of business not being done, for two simple reasons explained in my post.

Your response? That the filibuster must be done away with. Now that’s a great example of a circular argument.

[BrainGlutton]

@Martin Hyde

My point is that when you have one party government for extensive periods of time society becomes too monolithic in political thought. Certain ideas move to be consider “completely unacceptable” and they may be legitimate ideas. But they are kept out of the halls of power because when you have a powerful ruling force for decades it begins to shape society.

But what you’re describing applies only to true one-party states like North Korea and Iran. Nothing of the kind has happened in the UK, which originated the Westminster system you were initially warning us against. And it certainly hasn’t happened in any of the countries where multiparty system functions effectively – quite the opposite, in fact; such governments are perforce open to hearing views from all sides at all times.

@Martin Hyde

When in a proper functioning government like you find in the United States society tends to shape government.

I guess there’s more than one United States in the world and you live in a different one than I do.

[Gary_Robson]

@Ravenman

How many honest-to-God filibusters do you think there have been in the last ten years?

I don’t particularly care. It’s not germane to the point. If they’re a bad thing, then having them happen rarely doesn’t magically transform them into a good thing.

@Ravenman

Talk about missing the point. You proposed a system in which consensus is required to move to a vote on sometime, and I point out that such a proposal would INCREASE the amount of business not being done…

We’re just not communicating very well here, Ravenman. I’m not sure if I’m not expressing the point well enough, or if you’re not grasping what I’m trying to say. Let me try it again.

The current purpose of a filibuster is to allow a minority of the Senate to bring debate to a halt and prevent voting on a bill, thus killing the bill. It can take a long time (hours or days) to accomplish this. I’m asking why we can’t accomplish the same thing quickly by changing the procedure. Essentially, we’re saying that >40% of the Senate can kill a bill by shutting down all regular business of the Senate.

So, instead, we say that unless 60% of the Senate agrees to bring a bill to a vote, it dies. No fuss, no muss, no delays, no Senators acting like petulant children. How could this conceivably result in less business being done?

[Ravenman]

Well, if you wish to have your debate informed by facts, you should at least acknowledge that real filibusters are quite rare. It’s pretty darn silly to argue that the filibuster is a problem for our government if you don’t even have a clue about how often they happen. It’s like me saying that earthquakes are a huge problem for Chicago. What sense does that statement make if one cannot take into account that earthquakes are very rare in Illinois?

As far as the rule change: I will have to go into some detail here. Please bear with me. The only three ways to end debate and have a vote in the Senate is to: 1) allow debate to be exhausted, 2) move to table (kill) a question (in which if the motion is approved by a majority vote, the question that had been debated is killed – this is not a debatable motion and makes it easier for the Senate to reject legislation than it does to approve it), and 3) pass a cloture motion by 3/5 majority and allow 30 hours of additional debate to expire.

Let’s say there’s a controversial bill before the Senate that is supported by only 59 Senators – not enough to invoke cloture. Under the current Senate, the Majority could force the Minority to hold the floor and filibuster for as long as they could. If all the members of the minority fell to the floor in exhaustion, then debate would be finished, and a vote would ensue. But you don’t like this and think it is undignified. Fine.

If you allowed a motion, bill, or question to be tabled, or killed, on the strength of a 2/5ths vote of the Senate, that would only encourage a minority to obstruct anything happening at all. There would be no incentive for compromise, because the minority could literally kill every proposal that came down the pike, so long as they held together. In contrast, a filibuster does not kill a matter. It only delays it. And it exacts a price from those who seek to delay: they have to get out on the Floor, in front of CSPAN2 watchers, and talk. If the minority relents in its debate, the majority can push for a vote by virtue of debate having been exhausted.

I hate to add facts to a debate in which you have stated your wish to remain ignorant of them, but nearly a quarter of all the votes taken in the Senate this year have been decided by a margin closer than 60-40. In other words, there are many matters that COULD be filibustered, but because of the cost of filibustering, are NOT filibustered.

What’s more, the vast majority of honest to God, get out there and speak forever type of filibusters have failed to defeat the matter at hand. The filibuster cannot kill legislation, it can only slow it down. Whether matters should be killed is still a question decided by the Majority under today’s rules of the Senate. Your system would allow the minority to kill controversial items, not simply delay their passage, which is what the filibuster does in nine out of ten cases. I don’t think that anyone wants to give the minority THAT much power.