Tweet
The proud shameful tradition of the filibuster in our august broken Senate being used by a small group of privileged elites to deny rights to segments of this country now continues unbroken for over a century. Today, the legislative action that should have begun the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” failed to get cloture by a vote of 56 to 43 (note: for procedural reason Harry Reid had to switch his vote for yes to no). Those 43 senators used the filibuster to deny homosexuals their right to serve openly in our armed forces without government-imposed legal discrimination based on a minority status. In a sane democracy, winning 56 percent of the vote would be a victory, but sanity is at best an unwelcomed guest in the modern United States Senate.
The true history of the Senate filibuster is disgusting. It has always been a favorite tool of a handful of powerful bigots in our country to subvert democracy and prevent Americans, who happened to belong to an out group, from accessing their full Constitutional rights. The Senate rarely used filibuster one hundred years ago, but when it did, it was almost always to the determent of minorities.
The first time Congressman L.C. Dyer submitted a bill the outlaw lynching, in 1922, it was killed by a filibuster in the Senate. For roughly two decades, similar anti-lynching laws were passed in the House of Representatives only to see them die due to a filibuster in the Senate. During the same time period, the filibuster was used to stop other civil rights legislation, like eliminating the poll tax, a method most often used to prevent African Americans from voting. From the 1920s to the 1960s, the filibuster was used almost exclusively to stop civil rights legislation.
The use of the filibuster for the last century has not been about, as is often claimed, protecting the “rights” of the minority party in the Senate. In reality, it has been about the “right” of a handful of wealthy and powerful senators to deny rights to truly oppressed minorities in this country.
The fact that Democrats have allowed this insanity to continue for so long is a tragedy. They could and should eliminate this result of a 19th century rule-drafting oversight immediately and deliver on their promise. Sadly, for too many Democrats in the Senate, protecting the fabricated “rights” of a senator are infinitely more important to them than gay rights or creating an more equal society.
31 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Will Rogers’s observation that [Edited by Moderator] would be a very good thing seems just as apropos today as when he said it.
Some [Edited by Moderator] would probably change things. It certainly did around 1900.
[Mod Note: Even as a joke, let's not take this one any further]
found the censored quote here.
http://www.quotegarden.com/politics.html
Moderator forgets that Obama is bombing everyone and half the posts on here are supporting that. Common sense anyone?
[Mod Note: Moderator is pointing out that not even in a cartoon form or by quoting others, does FDL allow calls for violence against others]
I’ve hear it said that Guy Fawkes was the only person with honest intentions to enter the UK houses of parliament.
Consider this a failed comment, since a link I was trying to add to Rep. Anthony Weiner’s new web site didn’t “take” for some reason. To quote the folks from Sadly, No, “FYWP.”
Try again:
Weiner’s new web site.
Fingers crossed…
man, I rememeber when we were going nutz that the republicans were considering “the nuclear option’
I was againt it then and I’m against it now, we will NOT have a majority for long, prosibly not even after the next election, when the republicans propose the same thing watch us change out tune
sorry, i am NOT for changing the filibuster, I AM for gathering enough politicians that the filibuster becomes mute
By which I think you mean moot?
If the GOP can convince the American people that their failed ideas are worth electing 50+1 of them to the Senate, let them have their way. Democracy now.
ya, moot
it’s easy to fool a majority of any people much less the american people, much harder to fool enough to get past a filibuster
I didn’t want a nuclear option when the repukes had their majority and I don’t want it now, especially since we are not going to be enjoying a majority for too much longer
” From the 1920s to the 1960s, the filibuster was used almost exclusively to stop civil rights legislation.”
Dirty politics continues with moderate Republicans Collins and Snowe voting No… Glad to have moved out of that State…
Why the Democrats are partially responsible for today’s debacle:
http://www.deciminyan.org/2010/09/ask-tell-part-deux.html
What the filibuster does is to freeze Democracy so that we can’t learn from our mistakes. If we ended it tomorrow the Ds still have time to ram enough legislation through to change the electoral picture, and certainly guarantee the Senate. Then they can continue passing legislation during the lame duck session even if they’re about to lose the legislation. Without the Senate the Rs won’t be able to repeal anything.
If the legislation is good, for example a Federal Job Guarantee, a Payroll Tax holiday till the economy is in good shape, a $500 peer person revenue sharing grant to States to keep State and local employees on, measures to raise the miniwage to $10 per hour, and lower the work week to 35 hours, the effects will be felt in 2011 and the Ds will be returned to full control in 2012.
Yes, I know everybody’s worried about the deficit. Well first, when these bills are passed they won’t think about the deficit anymore until they’ve seen how they work, and once they’ve seen that, they’ll also notice that the deficit has been declining because the economy is working again and the privates sector is hiring reducing the burden on the automatic stabilizers.
Can the Ds do this? Yes! Will they? No! The D Party has lost its way. It has no convictions about what its purpose is. It badly needs t die and let a new Party take its place.
Pelosi said that on a district by district analysis the Ds are strong and will win. Made me curious.
When can we get back to having a “movie” filibuster? You know, actually make people stand there and talk all night.
With their archaic rules and bullshit, the U.S. Senate should rename itself the House of Lords and get it over with. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Want to see the WH, Pentagon, and Congress change their tune concerning DADT? We need to encourage 20,000+ troops to step forward and declare themselves to be gay and ask to be discharged. Just a suggestion. ; )
Can you imagine how quickly the policy would be overturned if that happened?
Are you actually dumb enough to believe that when the Republicans take control their first priority will NOT be to abolish the filibuster? And that the much vaunted “moderates” will join in without hesitation?
Does anyone know of one single bill that the democrats stopped under the bush administration?
I don’t think the dems had a 60 seat majority, but they did have a majority at some point, a minority at some point, and they were evenly split for a time during which Cheney often cast the tie breaking vote.
Did the dems stop anything at all, let alone defense authorization?
That the dems are such wusses is the reason I will NOT be voting for them again – not in the midterms, and not in 2012 – unless Obama is primaried by a REAL progressive.
I agree! The last time this occurred many of us phoned, or e-mailed, Reid’s office and encouraged him to call’em on it – force them to actually filibuster, bring in the cots, the cameras. It would be compelling tv and the nation might see the GOP for what they are. So where are the esteemed Senators tonite? Any of them filibustering?
Jon Walker – thank you for this – phenomenal props from all those I have shared it with today
They don’t like us. They don’t want us. They never have.
They Never will.
And I’m talking about the Democrats.
Oh they like our money alright. And easy marks like Joe Solomonese and the HRC are rolled by them in perpetuity.
Me? I prefer to be an outlaw. That’s who I was at the star and that’s who I still am at 63.
Fuck ‘em and the horse they rode in on!
As someone that was kicked out under DADT I just wish that I lived in a free country. The Senate told me today that I am less American than straight people and that gays will have as many rights as straight Americans want to give us.
Thank you for your service.
You are certainly correct here in that you called out the Senate. Reid likely had Collins as his 60th vote. However, the tragedy appears that Reid did not want Democrats voting on DADT and DREAM before the November elections. Now he can go back to Nevada and tell the Hispanic community he tried. As a conservative, I believe DADT would have passed on it’s own merits, as well it should have. Until politicians stop loading these bills with divisive add-ons for the purpose of political posturing, all of America will suffer. And this is not only my opinion as this was truly a disastrous attempt on the part of Reid solely for the purpose of political gamesmanship.
“The whole thing is a political train wreck,” said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.
Socarides said President Barack Obama “badly miscalculated” the Pentagon’s support for repeal, while Democrats made only a “token effort” to advance the bill.
“If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this,” he said.
I also thank you for your service.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
Yep, blame the Dems and ignore the one’s really responsible which are the Republicans. Do you really think Republicans support gays or DADT?????? ROTFL
The Republican Party is the party to fear; not the Dems. The Republican Party wants to change the Constitution and take away your freedom of and from religion and civil rights. They want to declare America a “Christian Nation” and legislate from the Bible instead of the Constitution. (or their interpretation of the Bible)
DADT: any serviceperson who decides he/she isn’t vicious, stupid, ignorant or mercenary enough to murder for the lies of Bush and Obama can say, “Colonel, sir, I’m as gay as a tray of hummingbirds. Where’s my ticket home?”
First step TODAY…Announce CANCELLATION OF ALL MILITARY CONTRACTS and issue an order to begin troop withdrawal from all military posts around the world, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Repubs would condemn the filibuster RIGHT NOW.
The Bigot’s grateful thank you:
+1000, great piece Jon. And you’re right, the filibuster could be abolished today. As Bill Frist’s former aide Martin Gold pointed out, the interpretation of Senate Rules can be changed anytime by majority vote. Gold offered a very simple “plan of action” that Senate Democrats could have used at any time.
The Senate’s constitutional rulemaking power can be exercised a second way: A simple majority could set a new Senate precedent that would alter the operation of a Standing Rule while leaving its text untouched. This exercise of the constitutional power could be applied to alter the interpretation and application of any Standing Rule,including Rule XXII’s requirement of a super-majority for cloture…
A Plan of Action… First, a Senator would raise a point of order to close debate. For example, a Senator could state, “Debate on this matter having proceeded for ‘x’ hours, I make the point of order that any further debate is dilatory and not in order.” Under Senate Rule XX, points of order not referred to the Senate are not debatable except at the sufferance of the Presiding Officer, although debate may generally be had on appeals. If the Presiding Officer sustained the point of order, he would set a new, binding Senate precedent allowing Senators to cut off debate. That, however, would not end the matter. The minority could (and likely would) appeal the Presiding Officer’s ruling. In a final step, the majority could move to table the appeal. The tabling motion would be non-debatable and subject to immediate vote. If a simple majority voted to table the appeal, the Senate would affirm the Presiding Officer’s ruling and thus allow Senators to cut off debate under the terms of the point of order.(Gold, Gupta, p. 260-261).
In other words, beowulf, you heartily endorse the proposition that a lockstep majority of Senators should – to manufacture this and thus any ‘rule’ (or just corruptly-manipulated precedent) – violate existing Senate rules instead of changing them (by simple majority) as the rules provide.
Honestly stated, that’s what both the “nuclear” option – which doesn’t bother waiting for a new Congress – and the “constitutional” option – which pretends that the next new Congress begins with no Senate rules, for the first time in over 200 years – are all about.
And all because you, and those who agree with you, as Majority Leader Bill Frist once pretended to, want to end the right to extended debate in the Senate without debating the question. [And because such an abuse of power would avoid the need to force the practice of real filibusters - and thus public debate (instead of the status quo of Reid-initiated supermajority cloture motions) - back into being in the Senate. This latter reason is obviously a primary motivation of the Party leadership and their private caucuses, which your support of their efforts promotes, whether you recognize it or not.]
In order to eliminate the right to extended debate in the Senate without debating the question, your Party majority has to pretend to act in accordance with existing Senate rules – either by having an unprincipled Presiding Officer, backed by a power-abusing Senate majority, knowingly violate existing rules of order and Senate precedent (on this and thus potentially every future question of order in the Senate), or by pretending that the Senate’s rules have all expired at the close of the preceding Congress (and thus will expire at the close of all future expiring Congresses, every two years, going forward).
To honestly state the proposition is to condemn it, as far as I’m concerned.