Tweet
The defense authorization bill containing a repeal of the discriminative “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy failed today in the Senate for a second time this year because it could only secure a majority of 57 votes. Once again, the shameful history of the filibuster being mainly a tool of bigots used to crush the rights of minorities continues. I said this the first time DADT failed this year, but it is no less true today:
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.
This is, of course, the “proud” tradition of their chamber that so many senators feel the need to defend, even if it is at the cost of denying health care to 9/11 rescue workers.
5 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
You know Jon, the very existence of the budget reconciliation process is proof that the House does have authority over Senate rules. If the Budget Reform Act of 1974 can limit the Senate filibuster power in one area, then a future Act of Congress (which of course must pass both Houses) can limit the filibuster in other areas. Make every bill a reconciliation bill. :o)
Let’s see, judicial nominations would still be under the 60 vote rule (unless the Senate grows a set and changes the rules by majority vote), ditto with cabinet nominations. However Congress (that is, at the House’s insistence) could change the law on sub-cabinet appointments by allowing cabinet secretaries to appoint w/o need of a Senate vote “inferior officers” under their supervision (for example, CMS director Berwick reports to HHS Secretary Sebelius). That step alone would clear out most of the appointments backlog
OK…I don’t understand. Was there a filibuster or merely the threat of one?
If the bigots who want to filibuster to make this need 60 votes..I want to see them reading phone books, sleeping on cots, getting take out food delivered..etc.
Make then work for it.
Make them do something.
Never requiring filibusters to work for their position is something I cannot understand.
The traditional filibuster (“Mr Smith Goes to Washington” style) is a thing of the past.
In the mid-’70s, the Senate revised the rule, leaving the “procedural” filibuster at the same time that they changed the rule from needing 67 votes (2/3) for cloture to 60 votes (3/5)
Hence, no more all night talking binges and Strom Thurmond’s record for holding the floor stays intact
Not making Senators actually filibuster is a way to provide cover under the guise of wanting Senate business to proceed. Imagine if the opposition were actually forced to continue debate for every item it filibustered. This is what has caused the over use the the filibuster.
The country is in severe trouble, DADT not withstanding. We cannot waste anymore time on DADT; the President is commander and chief of the armed forces and he should simply end the policy. It is put up or shut up time for Obama.
GOP party leaders who are adamantly opposed to gays in the military will use the issue to fund raise, but most of the country is trying to find work, stay in their homes or are hoping their jobs don’t vanish. Most Americans support gay people’s right to serve in the military or don’t really care one way or the other.
What the hell is Obama afraid of? Unless he just uses the powers he has under the Constitution, methinks the man simply does not want to see DADT end.
Yes. I’d like us to see keeping the filibuster, but making it so debate must continue on that bill and only on that bill and the Senate can’t adjourn. I’d like to see it reformed so that if there is less than a quorom debating it is the same thing as a vote to end debate and the president of the Senate is then authorized to set a time for the vote and then adjourn the Senate. I’d also like to see it that if no one wants to speak on the motion that means the debate is ended and the president then calls for a vote with not cloture vote needed. If there is no quorom then the president again sets a time for the vote and adjourns. Finally at anytime any member can call for a new cloture vote.
The last reform I’d like to see is limiting these cloture votes ONLY to ending debate before a final vote. No cloture needed to bring things to the floor.
Let’s call it the RESTORE THE FILIBUSTER rule.