Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
A brief history of the filibuster:
The filibuster is a practice in the U.S. Senate which allows senators to extend legislative debate for the purpose of preventing a measure being brought up for a vote. Since no rule limits the time senators may speak, it is impossible for the majority to end debate and move to a vote when one or more senators continue talking. The first use of a filibuster to prevent voting on a bill in the Senate was in 1837. The House also had filibusters until 1842, when its unwieldy numbers led adoption of a rule allowing a simple majority to limit the time for debate.
In 1917, the Senate regulated filibusters by passing a rule allowing for cloture — ending debate on a measure by a two-thirds vote. In 1975, the cloture threshold was further reduced to a three-fifths vote, or 60 of 100 senators. Though cloture motions were intended to allow ending filibusters more easily, the number of filibusters dramatically increased after 1970, when the Senate implemented a “two-track system” for dealing with filibusters. The two-track system allows the Senate to continue working on aspects of a measure facing filibuster instead of halting the business of the Senate entirely. While this system provided some level of protection for legislation under discussion in the chamber, filibusters were easier for the minority to sustain as they became less of a hindrance to Senate’s business.
I've always been against killing the filibuster, for the reasons often stated, i.e. the opposing party will use that precedent to pass all kinds of crazy laws as soon as they come into power again.
But I have looked at it differently lately, in light of this bizarre spectacle of the Democrats filibustering funding a significant part of the government, and with horrible timing considering the increase in Spring Break travel. Then the Senate - who perpetuates the filibuster - sends a bill they know is not acceptable to the House and prances off for their own spring breaks, leaving federal employees unpaid for the third time in six months.
So I ask myself this: If there were no such thing as a filibuster and someone, say an independent Senator with no partisan axe to grind, and with no pending controversial bill, suggested that we allow debate to be endless if one Senator is willing to keep talking with an option to include cloture with 60 votes, would we all clamor to support that idea?
Or more to the point, how many of us would support that idea?
The filibuster is a practice in the U.S. Senate which allows senators to extend legislative debate for the purpose of preventing a measure being brought up for a vote. Since no rule limits the time senators may speak, it is impossible for the majority to end debate and move to a vote when one or more senators continue talking. The first use of a filibuster to prevent voting on a bill in the Senate was in 1837. The House also had filibusters until 1842, when its unwieldy numbers led adoption of a rule allowing a simple majority to limit the time for debate.
In 1917, the Senate regulated filibusters by passing a rule allowing for cloture — ending debate on a measure by a two-thirds vote. In 1975, the cloture threshold was further reduced to a three-fifths vote, or 60 of 100 senators. Though cloture motions were intended to allow ending filibusters more easily, the number of filibusters dramatically increased after 1970, when the Senate implemented a “two-track system” for dealing with filibusters. The two-track system allows the Senate to continue working on aspects of a measure facing filibuster instead of halting the business of the Senate entirely. While this system provided some level of protection for legislation under discussion in the chamber, filibusters were easier for the minority to sustain as they became less of a hindrance to Senate’s business.
I've always been against killing the filibuster, for the reasons often stated, i.e. the opposing party will use that precedent to pass all kinds of crazy laws as soon as they come into power again.
But I have looked at it differently lately, in light of this bizarre spectacle of the Democrats filibustering funding a significant part of the government, and with horrible timing considering the increase in Spring Break travel. Then the Senate - who perpetuates the filibuster - sends a bill they know is not acceptable to the House and prances off for their own spring breaks, leaving federal employees unpaid for the third time in six months.
So I ask myself this: If there were no such thing as a filibuster and someone, say an independent Senator with no partisan axe to grind, and with no pending controversial bill, suggested that we allow debate to be endless if one Senator is willing to keep talking with an option to include cloture with 60 votes, would we all clamor to support that idea?
Or more to the point, how many of us would support that idea?
