There’s a lot of talk about abolishing the filibuster, but I think the best solution would be to restore it to its former glory, where someone would have to actually talk to interrupt debate. None of this namely-pamby threat stuff. Like Arthur Dent - you must actually lie down in front of the bulldozer, not just say you are going to do it.
If this was done, it would not only make filibusters rare, but it would mean that they actually took some effort.
Yes. And even then I’d like to see limits on how often they can be utilized. Our Constitution and most of our official governing legislation doesn’t recognize the existence of political parties. We don’t have to honor them by name in order to say that if more than x% of the people in the Senate caucus with the same political party, that cluster of people in their entirety can’t filibuster more than x times per calendar year; and that no individual regardless of presence or absence of party affiliation can filibuster more than once in a Senatorial 6-year term.
The way it was set up, the 60 votes are for a cloture motion – a motion to limit debate, because there are no automatic limits. So, in spirit, at least, a filibuster ought to not only be speaking, but should be on topic. Not to interrupt debate, but to continue it. In addition, with a speaking filibuster, I believe no other business could be conducted by the Senate. (At least, on the floor of the Senate.)
I’m all for it if:
I agree with those rules, plus (and maybe this went unsaid) that each person only has one turn – once they yield their time, they are done. So, maximum filibuster is however long each person can talk without a break, cumulatively. I think staying on topic should be highly encouraged, but maybe it’s not possible to actually enforce. But merciless guff should be given if someone refuses to end debate and then they read the phone book to take up time.
If they can’t win the vote, and can’t change any minds with more debate and thereby change that result, then the filibuster has failed, and the vote should be taken.
I would be in favor of this if we could believe that every single Senate bill would not be filibustered. I guess maybe there would have to be a restriction on the number of times it could be used by each member, but I’m not sure how that would be done.
The problem is that anyone who restored the filibuster would be the only ones beholden to it.
As soon as another party took over, nothing would stop them from nuking it.
Short of a constitutional amendment, the filibuster has been little more than a gentlemen’s agreement.
It was an unintended side effect. It was never created for any purpose. It’s just that at some point, some senator realized that there were no rules to make him shut up. That he could hold the floor as long as he wanted.
What made the filibuster was when rules for cloture were put into place. Senators didn’t want people abusing this loophole, so they said that if a supermajority voted to tell that guy to shut up and let business progress, then he had to do so.
That worked for a while, then it started getting abused again, so they reduced the number needed to invoke cloture.
Eliminating it is just the final step of the road the senate has been on since this loophole was first exploited.
But you’re skipping the part where they eliminated the need to actually filibuster. That is when it really became overly powerful, I think. At least, I don’t remember it being used very often in the days when holding the floor by speaking was required.
The biggest problem with this proposal is that it results in a filibuster not just stalling a single issue, but stalling the entire legislative body.
The Senate isn’t actually in session that often, because Senators have lots of other important tasks besides being on the floor. They have to write legislation and manage their staff and have committee meetings and so on.
A party with 41 members in the Senate could easily split an entire session into 4-hour chunks and just talk through it. It takes a reasonable amount of stamina to stand and talk for 4 hours straight, but not that much. That gives them a full month of stalling the Senate. 20 full workin days of a quorum of Senators waiting around in the hopes that there will be some procedural opening. That’s why the need to actually filibuster was dropped. The minority party could do it, and no one wants to waste a whole session spinning their wheels.
Yeah, if it can’t be made more rare and more finite, I’m fine with dropping it, because it has definitely become unworkable as it is.
I guess my point is that making the cloture vote into a veto didn’t help. It does take more commitment and sets you up for more blame, if you have to hold the floor, and no other business can be done.
A suggestion to keep something like a filibuster but not be abusable would be to have the required number of votes for cloture decrease over time.
This keeps the majority party from ramming through legislation without allowing debate, but it also keeps the minority party from able to hold up legislation without actually changing minds.
So, maybe it takes 60 votes to end cloture immediately, but every day of debate reduces that by 1. So if a minority party with 45 members wants to have their say on the record and Senate floor, they get 5 days to monopolize the Senate’s time and bring attention to their cause. If they want to spend those 5 days reading from the phone book, they are welcome to do so. And then they’re done and the bill gets passed and we move on.
I’m always a bit baffled when I see these kinds of posts wanting to bring back the “talking filibuster.” Are we really looking back on the days of Strom Thurmond and the Senate blockade of civil rights legislation with longing? Is that the example of a well-functioning Senate? And anyone who thinks that requiring a Senator (or more likely, the entire minority party) to expound at length on his or her position in front of a guaranteed national audience is a deterrent doesn’t know much about Senators. The increase in threats to filibuster over the past decades have little to do with a lack of a talking requirement and everything to do with rising partisanship in the chamber.
A Senate majority could force Senators to talk out a filibuster today – just try to move the ayes or nays and then then the filibustering Senators would have to put up or shut up. As mentioned, the reason for the current cloture rules is so that the Majority Leaders knows the motion will be filibustered so can conduct other business rather than bringing the chamber to a halt.
Best is just to set limits on debate for each bill. A time limit for each speech and limit on number of speakers for and against. I believe that’s the way the House does it, there’s no reason the Senate can’t do the same.
AAUI, that was a compromise reached about 60-odd years ago. Before that, cloture required two-thirds of the assembled body (which could be considerably less than 67 votes).
that’s one of the abolish the filibuster proposals.
not all actually want to abolish the filibuster, just make it harder to filibuster so that people only use it when necessary.
If we were to have a filibuster, then we should have filibuster rooms adjacent to the main chamber.
If someone wants to hold up legislation, they can go in that room and start talking.
Senate business can continue on for other bills. The filibustering senator will be considered present for the purpose of a quorum, but not be able to vote.
Though, as I said, as long as it only take a majority to end the filibuster, unless there is something binding, then anyone who makes these rules will be the only one that has to abide by them.
There is some value in forcing a legislative body to actually deliberate rather than being able to pass legislation with a scant majority.
Sure, Thurmond is one of the more famous uses of the filibuster, but it’s not like racists are always going to be in the minority.
Being able to force the body to actually debate something for a few days (not forever) is a good protection against unpopular policies that can manage to garner 51 votes becoming law. By standing in front of the camera and talking about it for a few days, you can make that 51st Senator think really hard about whether they want that to be their legacy. There’s value in that. And you make it actually limited so that things still get done. The majority still gets to make laws, but they have to do it with the focus of the media for a few days if the minority chooses.
This^
Yes, that’s what I’d be OK with. But I suppose it’s not like you can force them to actually debate, and it’s probably so much easier to call public attention to issues now that it’s usefulness may really be over.
Strom Thurmond’s filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act failed. He set a record by talking contnuously for over 24 hours, but ultimately it had no effect. The bill passed.
I’m not a fan of the filibuster, but the old way of doing it was better than the current way. It used to be just a stalling tactic, because it was impossible to keep it up for long. Now it’s a way for a minority to take a bill out of consideration indefinitely.
Maybe but historically the senate has been considered the more deliberative body in the government. The wiser, less reactive part of the government because they would and could take time to deliberate and discuss issues facing the country and come to a more considered opinion.
The filibuster helped in this regard. It could slow things down and force consideration of other points of view that otherwise would never be heard.
If you get rid of the filibuster (the long version) you take the ability to have various points of view heard and put in the record and are left with a more reactive senate than a deliberative one.
Maybe you think that is a good thing. I do not. I think there should be some avenue for minority voices to be heard in the government and the long filibuster is one such way if those in power overreach without the minority thwarting anything they want (unless they are super-duper committed to doing so).