DiscussMormonism.com

Filibusters, originally envisioned as a weapon to be used in the most drastic circumstances, has become a day to day tool in the Senate, greatly impairing the body’s ability to pass legislation.

What is a filibuster? In order to block a piece of legislation from coming to a vote, any Senator or group of Senators can talk for as long as they want about anything they want, effectively bringing the Senate to a halt.

To stop a filibuster, you have to invoke cloture (which requires a quick end to the debate), which requires 60 votes. What this means is that while you only need 51 votes to pass a piece of legislation, if a single Senator wishes to filibuster, you need 60 votes stop the filibuster and get it to the floor for a vote!

Why would anyone design a system like this? The word ‘filibuster’ does not appear in the Constitution. From the Dutch word for ‘pirate’, filibuster was first used to describe 'pirating' legislation in 1851.

The procedures adopted in In 1789 by the Senate allowed a debate on a bill to end by a simple majority vote requesting a “move to the previous question” (In other words that the bill that was being debated. In 1806 Aaron Burr observed that the “move to the previous question” had only been used once in the previous 4 years, and said the rule was redundant. The Senate agreed and got rid of the rule.

The potential for a filibuster was born, but it was not exercised for 31 years, when Henry Clay tried to stop debate on the establishing a second Bank of the United States.

Despite (or perhaps because of ) the tremendous power a filibuster could give a single Senator, the filibuster was used very infrequently.

In 1917, twelve Republican Senators blocked a bill that would have allowed merchant ships to arm themselves in the face of a German declaration of unlimited submarine warfare. A frustrated Woodrow Wilson backed a Democratic-majority Senate cloture rule, which allowed the Senate to stop debate on an issue if 2/3rds of those Senators voting agreed. (Amended to 3/5ths in 1975).

When the Senate invoked cloture against the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was the only the second time cloture had been invoked since 1927.

In the 2009-2010 Senate there were 137 motions filed with 91 votes for cloture and 63 successful invocations of cloture.

What the hell happened?

In effect you need 60 votes to pass virtually anything in the Senate. It has made the business of a working government increasingly difficult.

Should we decrease the cloture majority to 55?
Should we limit the number of filibusters that either party can instigate in a year?
Should we go back to the rule of 1789?

Whichever side of the aisle you call home, one fact remains: The Founding Fathers never envisioned the Senate operating like this.

the solution is to abolish the Senate.

The Senate used to pride itself on being the more civil chamber, where mature statesmen could have earnest debate about the true pros and cons of legislation. In such a Senate, the cloture rule was created to simply allow continued debate until a supermajority was ready to vote on the main issue. It wasn’t intended as a way to block legislation—only as a way to ensure that the Senate didn’t make hasty decisions.

The regular use of filibusters proves the Senate is no longer the civil chamber it once was. The “nuclear option” notwithstanding, doesn’t a change to the Senate rules require a 2/3rds majority? That being the case, there are only two ways things could change. First, perhaps the Senate will regain its civility and trust will be restored, and there will be a bi-partisan agreement to end filibusters. Second, perhaps the majority party will someday gain 67 senators and decide to crush the minority by unilaterally rewriting this rule.

Which way of ending this is less likely?

Should we decrease the cloture majority to 55?

I like this option the best.

Analytics wrote: The “nuclear option” notwithstanding, doesn’t a change to the Senate rules require a 2/3rds majority? That being the case, there are only two ways things could change. First, perhaps the Senate will regain its civility and trust will be restored, and there will be a bi-partisan agreement to end filibusters. Second, perhaps the majority party will someday gain 67 senators and decide to crush the minority by unilaterally rewriting this rule.

Which way of ending this is less likely?

You're right. A rule change requires a 2/3rds majority, which is unlikely. And quite frankly, I don't see both parties singing Cumbayah around the campfire anytime soon.

I just wish both parties could see that this is hurting the country.The worm turns. One party will be in the majority today, another tomorrow. To come to a compromise, both parties need to ask themselves: what looks right from both sides?

Some people are quite content to be ideologues hurling invectives at each other, but meanwhile the dirty messy business of democracy needs to get done. Americans love to think of themselves as idealistic and uncompromising, but the realty is that our whole system of government is based on compromise.

by the way, here is a link to Sen. Udall's filibuster reform proposal that i believe most senate Democrats support.

Greg Sargent at Washington Post summarized the main points as:

* Clear Path to Debate: Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed
* Eliminates Secret Holds
* Right to Amend: Guarantees Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority
* Talking Filibuster: Ensures Real Debate
* Expedite Nominations: Reduce Post-Cloture Time

Yeah, I was going to post Udall's proposal as well. That strikes me as quite reasonable. Make filibusters have to function as actual, public filibusters. That should reduce their role back into more of the outlier, serious cases they legitimately function well for. Nuclear optioning the issue has a nasty side-effect of removing the filibuster as an effective tool even though there are legitimate ends I'd like to see it as an option for.

Democrats will probably stop supporting it once they are in the minority again, incidentally. That's the problem. Without a politician that has the clout to move the public on this issue, we're just going to get a merry-go-round of hypocritical role reversals.

greatly impairing the body’s ability to pass legislation.

This is generally a good thing. Another way to control the government is to starve it of funds.

bcspace wrote:

greatly impairing the body’s ability to pass legislation.

This is generally a good thing. Another way to control the government is to starve it of funds.

Pretty idiotic move for a group of people whoa re too deluded to know they depend on the government. Without government, you'd have nothing. Did you get that? Nothing.