One major difference between the way the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives conducts their business is the existence of the Senate filibuster. In short, there is unlimited debate in the Senate, providing a minority of senators the opportunity to forestall the passage of legislation they oppose. The filibuster became a tool that opponents of the civil rights legislation in the 1960's used to slow down legislation that would have expanded voting rights, particularly in the South. In fact, Strom Thurmond unsuccessfully fought such a law when he filibustered for 24 hours. In more recent years, the filibuster has been used not only to grind the legislative process to a crawl but, to also prevent a president's nominees for judgeships and executive department positions to be confirmed. Democrats in the early part of this decade filibustered several of President Bush's choices for federal judgeships. With the Democrats regaining control of the Senate, Republicans have returned the favor in record numbers of filibusters against President Obama and his choices for judgeships and other administrative positions.
A cloture motion is need to end a filibuster. Cloture is successful when 60 senators vote to end debate. With the use of the filibuster on the rise, it has raised, the minds of some, concerns that the Senate has become inefficient and unable to conduct business in a timely fashion. The idea that the legislative process operates upon the principle of majority rule has been been replaced by the notion that nothing gets done in the Senate without a supermajority of 60 votes. With Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, effectively giving the GOP a veto over any Democratic legislative proposals even if they have substantial support. And, if and when, the tables are turned, the Democrats are likely to return the favor. As a result, there have been calls for reforming the filibuster, with some even suggesting it be eliminated. Should it be eliminated? Or is there some reform that can retain it as a useful tool without derailing the legislative process?
(Here are some links that you may find useful):
Debatepedia
Tom Harkin Interview
History of the Filibuster
Newsweek Article
Cloture Motions in the 111th Congress
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I would trust Senator Harkin at this point. He was more than happy to use the filibuster during the Bush Administration's judicial nominee hearings. The democrats at that time were determined to stop the process altogether.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, the number of cloture motions in the 111th Congress does not mean there were that many filibusters.
Congress has done far more, I believe, than was ever meant. Our founding fathers meant for members to serve a short time, then go home to their families and get a regular job. I believe our founding fathers also did not mean for the filibuster to be used to completely stop the process. While the power has been abused (by both parties), I believe it still has its place. Take the health care bill (please!). All across the country, this legislation was losing support. Day after day, the public was learning new things that were in the legislation. Day after day, the public spoke to their legislators. And day after day, they were ignored. The filibusters that took place allowed us more time to read what was being proposed. There are still things in that legislation that haven't come to light. And many votes were being pushed on legislation that had not been put into legislative form. The Congressional Budget Office was asked to score bills that were still in mark-up form. There is such corruption in Congress. At this point, I do not think the filibuster should be taken away. Reform would be nice, but I don't trust the long-term members of the Senate to do it honorably.
It is interesting to note that while President Obama's approval ratings have taken a huge dive in year's time, more Americans give him a higher rating on handling health care than they do Congress. Also of note, the American public gives Republicans in Congress the lowest rating. Finally, a majority of Americans think that the health care proposals either don't go far enough or are about right. It is true when you add the percentage of folks who either think it has gone too far and those who oppose it because it doesn't go far enough you get a majority opposed to the bill. However, it is not, as portrayed by opponents what it seems. Only about 1/3 oppose the bill because it goes too far.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_obama_011110.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
I feel that filibusters should be eliminated. In what other place than the Senate is it okay to talk about nothing simply to outlast your oppenens view? NOWHERE! I find tainhe idea simply insane. A cloture takes at least 60 votes and is very difficult to obtain. While it fine and even good to have different opinions and to debate them, simply stomewalling the other side's opinion is just downright wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhether the legislation went far enough or too far, there is a tremendous amount of opposition on individual portions of the bill, such as the tax on "cadillac" plans. And that opposition goes even higher when you factor in the exemption for unions.
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 portions of the proposed legislation that are supported by a high majority of Americans; a national exchange, and requiring insurance companies to provide coverage despite pre-existing conditions. I think Congress would have a better chance at passing something if it was smaller bits at a time. If they pass the things that have support, and it works, they'll have a little more support at trying some of the more controversial things
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
I think the filibuster should be abolished because it is not a fair. If their is someone strongly aganist your view that is more agressive about elminating your issue it is easy to do with a filibuster. Yes you can end this process with a cloture but it takes 60 senators to accomplish this which is hard to do. Filibusters just make it harder to work the legislative process in the senate.
ReplyDeleteI believe filibustering is a useful tool that should remain as is. As AStinnett mentions, it is with this tool that Americans have had the time to learn more of the details of the healthcare bill that is primarily being driven by the self-interested health insurance industry. The process of making laws that affect the U.S. population not just now, but for years to come is something that should be taken very seriously, and thought through. I agree, like anything of value, filibustering is abused at times, but that does not mean it should be eliminated nor necessarily changed. Cloture, with 60% of the our state representatives in agreement is the reasonable way to end a filibuster in that it allows, as a democracy does, the majority to rule. To eliminate this tool in the lawmaking process would be at the detriment of the people for too many politicians today lack foresight or the desire that our founding fathers had to make choices for the future good of ALL.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that the filibuster needs to be reformed in a way. With certain situations to have prolonged debates may be a good thing to make sure that all opinions, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the task at hand can be heard. I do feel that if nothing else instead of a 3/5 vote to end a filibuster, there should be a set time limit. Also if the excessive talking has nothing to do with the bill at all it should be stopped immediately unless it leads to worthy point. For the most part it should be kept for its good intentions but changed for the needless talking.
ReplyDeleteThe filibuster needs to stay as it is currently. It's an important check and balance. If one party controls the White House and both chambers they can too easily squash any dissent. It allows the minority party to have a voice....if they have 40 Senators. Have a great week. Jimmy Fisher
ReplyDeleteI dont think the filibuster should be eliminated. Revised sounds alot better to me. I believe The filibuster serves to protect the minority, regardless of who the minority party is and that many people on boths sides act on there political sidings rather than there morals or principles...-JonathanKelly(student)
ReplyDeleteI think that the filibusters should be ended. I don’t think it is fair, and I think that a cloture would be hard to achieve.
ReplyDelete