Tweet
Senate Chamber, early 1900s
Realizing the Senate is highly dysfunctional, the Los Angeles Times editorial board has called for the Senate rules to be reformed. The editorial though doesn’t want the Senate to adopt the proven solution of just eliminating the filibuster because they want the filibuster to retain its “legitimate and historic place.” From the LA Times:
One response would be to eliminate the filibuster altogether. As a Senate rule, it can be changed by the majority party, and Democrats could eliminate it (though, of course, Republicans would almost certainly filibuster such a move). That, however, would also do away with the filibuster’s legitimate and historic place. Rather than eliminating the rule, the better approach would be to amend it in such a way as to preserve the ability for minorities to fight against one-party steamrolling while scaling back the filibuster’s capacity for obstructing everything.
This is simply stupid. There is no legitimate reason for allowing the minority, the party which lost the recent election, to have a veto in the Senate. The founders never intended a Senate minority to have such awesome power over basic legislation. The Constitutions clear stated the few very important issues that should require a super majority in the chamber, everything else was intended to be a simple majority vote.
The idea that without a filibuster a majority in the Senate is going to steamroll are system is laughable. A senate majority is already checked and balanced by the House, the President and the judiciary. If a party does manage to dominates multiple elections allowing them to full control, they should be able to enact the agenda they run on. That is how democracy are suppose to work.
If people really think that there is a legitimate role for a filibuster in a functional legislature, they should then be advocating for it to be adopt at the state level. To date though I have basically found no one who thinks creating filibuster in their state senate would improve their state government. In fact just two years ago the LA Times editorial board advocated for eliminating super majority requirements in California.
14 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Is there a state Senate anywhere, in the 49 that have them, that has the filibuster?
You mean its legitimate and historic place killing civil rights measures? That legitimate and historic place?
Because that’s what the filibuster has “historically” been used for, up until the last 15-20 years when it started getting used for, well, everything.
Think on this. The Senate is a ‘constitutional’ gerrymander in which people in small states are disproportionately represented. The ‘traditional’ filibuster, may, repeat may, have been a way to address that. I won’t present the arguments why or how. The filibuster has recently come to be purely a destructive tool to stop change of any kind and thwart the will of the public. It is a reactionary tool in reactionary hands. The Senate may ‘have’ problems but the Senate, itself, is the problem. Conceived to protect slavery specifically and the rich generally , among other things, it disqualifies the US federal government from being considered a democracy and warrants extinction of its present form. It is disproportional in extreme and we see the results. The constitutional gerrymander of the Senate, combined with partisan gerrymandering, and a reactionary Supreme Court majority, combined with Citizens United, translates into a functioning non-democracy which has only certain forms of democratic representativeness, not the reality.
The argument that the filibuster protects minority rights is only true if the minority is rich, white, or privileged. There has not been one filibuster to my knowledge that either advanced civil rights or protected civil liberties. Tell me if it is otherwise.
Very good job and entertaining as well. For Americans must be entertained when trained, or err.. excuse me, edumacated. I also think it’s high past time the elected participate in that ancient X-mas tradition. You know, the roasting of nuts upon an open fire. I’ll bring the ” water dragons ” and the rest of you can bring the ” southern dragons “. The racists and rich: their politics and their money are so intermingled it’s almost impossible to separate. It’s like trying to separate fly shit from pepper. A rather useless endeavor, so why bother. The filibuster’s power should be trimmed or removed. Ya know, like McConnell’s and DeMint’s chins and Sessions’ shoelifts.
The filibuster is indefensible .Trimming and reforming represent the problem ,not any type of solution .The problem is no public transparency or accountability ,and whatever outcome that eventuates from tinkering with it will confirm this problem. To defend it on grounds that it will later be .used against us when power shifts ,reveals the reactionary mindset of a congenital loser , who reflects why we have no power and are clowned as morons . .
End the filibuster touts suite ,and hence all pressure on Reid
If a group wins a majority, then they have the right to enact their agenda. Tough shit for the losers. That goes for either party. That’s the way things work. Don’t like it? Get your guys elected and change what you don’t like. Repeal it if you have the votes. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and take it like a man.
Why should the minority, which was rejected in the election, have control of what’s passed? That’s the winner’s prerogative. Talk about ass-backwards.
The original purpose of the filibuster was to prevent a tyranny by the majority, allowing a dissenting member to speak out. However, it has been stretched well beyond the original intent and definition, and the rule is now being abused by a belligerent minority. Paralysis is the result.
The problems can be mitigated by bringing the rule back to it’s original intent, and requiring someone to actually speak during the filibuster.
I’m 65 and can’t recall it working like that in my lifetime. Winners have rights, and losers actually lose?
There’s a history of the filibuster beginning with ancient Rome — scroll down to today’s US Senate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
There’s not enough detail in that link, though. A detailed history of complaints about filibuster would be a good read.
We’ve been here before. Recall the “nuke option” pondered by the GOP in 2005 to thwart Dem filibuster. Obama, Biden, Reid, et al were outraged. So the pomp and circumstance reverses from time to time.
Killing filibuster wasn’t a bad idea then, nor is it now. Reid should take action with a simple majority vote in January as soon as he walks in the door, and let the chips fall.
We can have an office pool here, betting whether that will actually happen.
My #9 is Re #7. Edit and reply not functioning properly.
A form of the ‘filibuster’ called the disappearing quorum was prevalent in the 19th century in the US house of reps.
Reed’s Reforms” did it in. It is time for another Reid to do the same in the Senate.
Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine proceeded against the “disappearing quorum”
January 29, 1890
source: http://artandhistory.house.gov/highlights.aspx?action=view&intID=37
Speaker Reed of Maine proceeded against the “disappearing quorum” during a roll-call vote by ruling as present those Members gathered on the floor but not voting. At the time, a quorum (i.e., the minimum number of Members required to conduct House business—half plus one) was established only by counting the number of Members who cast votes. Minority party Members could block legislation they opposed by refusing to vote or to respond to quorum calls. This practice stymied closely divided Congresses in the late 19th century. As a Member of the minority party Reed had defended the tactic as an “extraordinary mode” of protecting against the tyranny of the majority. Yet, when Republicans gained the majority and made Reed Speaker, he abruptly instructed the Clerk to count present all Members on the floor.
I do recall several instances over the last 30 years when the Dems were in the minority in the Senate and used the filibuster to stop the far-right from passing a series of horrible draconian laws. Most recently during the first 6 years of the second Bush regime. I can’t now remember what the laws were, but I do remember being very relieved that the Dems were able to stop far-right extremism from passing into law.
I do favor the ability of the minority to stop legislation. The problem is that the current rules make it way too easy. The current rules allow the minority, today it’s the GOP, to kill any bill by just saying that they might block it. The bill can’t even be discussed at all.
The rule changes I have heard so far sound fine: allow a bill to at least start being discussed, and revert to the old-fashioned way of doing it – by talking nonstop, actually having to be accountable for holding up the nation’s business.
I support filibuster must stop all senate activity. Senator must speak on floor or yield the floor. Speech must be on bill at hand. No reading phone books. Speeches must take place 24/7/365. Senate cannot adjurn until filibuster has ended. Vote on bill must take place as soon as filibuster ends.
Re: # 12
I think your message is to be careful not to confuse process with ideology. That’s the error most people make when they get riled either about filibuster or threats to it.
Once it’s gone, later there will be executioners wishing they hadn’t done so. And there will be far- this or that wondering what to do next. They all deserve that dilemma though.