19 thoughts on “The Filibuster”

1. The original intention of a filibuster was to allow the minority a voice in the Senate. When executed in that spirit, a filibuster advanced the democratic process as it opened the floor for debate on a given topic. Today the filibuster process is being abused as it can be ‘performed’ in absentia. Given that a minority can block a vote by merely stating their intention to filibuster, bills are halted indefinitely and, in effect, it can be argued that this is unconstitutional as the constitution intended for a majority vote in the Senate, not 60%.

   I would propose to change the filibuster in a manner that brings it closer to the founders’ intentions. Given that the intention was to further the deliberative process, I would return to talking filibusters where live rhetoric is required. I would argue that 2-3 days of deliberation would be a fair amount of time, and, to ensure that the minority received their time and yet, that the process does not become protracted indefinitely, I would reduce the 60% required for cloture to majority; however, I would only allow a cloture vote to be taken after the minimum 2-3 days had passed.

2. While the filibuster was originally designed as a protection against the overwhelming interests of the majority, I believe that ultimately it has become an abused tactic in trying to prevent the implementation of new ideas from the majority. Many times filibustering is only one step in a long and arduous process in implementing laws, thus making it a minor irritation to the majority and not the tall, iron gate that some people imagine would be standing in their way. Additionally, filibustering creates further partisanship among political parties resulting in more harm than good to the political process, the legislators themselves, and Congressmen and women’s constituents.

   I believe that eliminating the filibuster altogether might aid in reducing the time spent on preventing the passage of legislation one is opposed to and increasing time spent negotiating on the rules set by newly formed legislation. By requiring bi-partisianship in order to produce legislation on a regular basis, Democrats and Republicans would be required to work together more frequently and negotiate terms more often, thus increasing the effectiveness of Congress overall. Simply put, if Congressmen and women spend less time disagreeing with each other and declaring their opposition to new laws and more time in negotiations trying to help produce them, I believe that everyone wins.

3. The original intent of the filibuster was sound. As a procedural feature to block a vote and demand further debate, it ensured the minority had a voice. The threat itself is enough to ensure partisan legislation is not advanced, and that legislators seek a bipartisan approach to circumvent the delay. In a sense, the filibuster allows for more central route processing. It is another rule put in place to ensure the advancement of the deliberative process. However, just as it is a rule that seeks to remedy a system where individuals are able to stray from the democratic process, one is able to hijack the original intent of the filibuster which further harms the remedy it set out to infect. It becomes a hijacking of a hijacking, and one can’t imagine its useful intent when obscured through the readings of “Green Eggs and Ham.”

   With this in mind, more guidance and more limitation should be advanced to ensure healthy debate and to ensure our elected officials spend their time wisely. Senators should be limited to speak on issues germane to the deliberation on the floor. They should have strict time limits going in and votes to extend—procedurally a filibuster in and of itself—instead of cloture votes to end or set the limits after such a hijacking takes place.

   If we have elected officials attempting to pass legislation that leads to a filibuster, we should put more time into who we elect. Equally, we should question the motives of those willing to dissent through the reading of children’s books. With all of that said however, the system is set up to ensure we don’t have a room full of nodding heads who never challenge the waves. Like the legal system, the parliamentary procedures are a very important set of rules that effect a most perfect form of (human) justice.

4. The idea of the filibuster as a way to give minorities an opportunity to be heard and present their arguments, is far from the actual procedure that takes place in the senate today.
   Unfortunately, like many other procedures in government, the Filibuster has become a partisan weapon. For this reason, I do not criticize the Filibuster itself like it was envisioned when developed in 1806, but the politicians that abuse it and the tactics that they use to stop legislation from passing, simply because of partisan conflicts that do not contribute to the proper functioning of government.

   One of the biggest issues I have with the Filibuster is the fact that the Senator standing of the floor does not need to be talking about the actual issue being discussed or the argument being presented. Like we saw in the video, they can be reading children’s books to their kids, while so many important issues could actually be under discussion. In my opinion, this is not just a waste of time, but also a waste of tax-payer dollars. While a senator is talking on the floor, other senators are not listening, not passing legislation, not taking votes. Essentially, not doing their jobs. Additionally, the fact that a filibuster results in other complex senate procedures, means that important discussion, legislation and votes get unnecessarily delayed.
   My recommendation would be abolish the filibuster and to develop rules that allow the minority to express their views and opinion, with limits on time and clear rules about the topics that can be talked about when presenting their arguments.

5. My initial impression of a filibuster was a favorable one. Back in High School, when we watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, amongst the lessons taught was that a filibuster is a good thing. It allowed for a minority opinion to influence the majority. Though, currently it is used as a platform for dissenting opinions to prevent progress on a gamut of processes.

   Like many tools, it’s usefulness usually depends on the skills of whomever is using it. To give an example, I am not the greatest guitar player, and if you were hear me play, you would probably recommend I practice for a while. But if you were to give my guitar to a skilled guitarist, he would be able to play incredible music with the exact same instrument. It is how you use it that defines its usefulness.

   The filibuster is often abused and despite its pitfalls, we see both parties utilizing its mechanics for their own gains. Though I don’t find it extremely difficult to understand how a filibuster can fit in to our democratic society (free speech, etc.), and it’s clearly necessary for Mr. Smith to win his battle, in its current form, filibusters are simple ploys of the minority to delay what is sometimes inevitable (like Mr. Cruze’s speech).

   The speaker is not required to discuss the relevant issue and very rarely is anything solved. I would definitely change the rules of how a filibuster may be conducted.

6. The worth of the filibuster can only be measured based on how it is used/abused, and how the Senate itself is functioning. When the Senate is functioning in a constructive way, voting on bills, making compromises and moving business along, the filibuster is an essential tool of the minority. It is important that the minority have to ability to delay a vote, extend debate and draw the public’s attention to an issue without being steamrolled by the majority.

   However, when the body devolves into obstructionism like we have seen in the last 6 years, the filibuster can quickly become the parliamentary equivalent of a child, with fingers in ears, shouting, “I can’t hear you.”

   Ultimately I think the filibuster is a good thing, and an important tool for senators to be able to use. I would like to see it used more sparingly though and possibly amended so that anyone filibustering, must be speaking to the debate, not reading a phone book.

7. Filibustering is a topic that rarely crosses my mind. Since watching Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, I’ve only had favorable thoughts on the tactic. It seemed to be a tool that enabled minority members of the Senate, and those with the most honorable of intentions, to prolong debate on a serious topic.

   After reading Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate , I was shocked to learn that a filibuster is used, on average, twice per bill consideration. I am relieved to know that there are provisions in place to end a filibuster, but the whole process seems like an inefficient, partisan battle rather than motivating political discourse.

   Ultimately, I think that the verdict on filibustering depends on its use. When used to support the minority and to extend debate, it can be a vital tool for our legislative system. When abused, the filibuster seems to just be a dangerous weapon to use for control and manipulation. The rules of filibustering should be changed to prevent abuse. The time should be spent discussing the bill at hand, not reading the dictionary.

8. The filibuster is ultimately a great tradition of the United States Senate and by many was seen as a great protection of the right of political minorities against political majorities. While the filibusters original intent was meant to allow the minority a voice in the senate it has been used to block critical votes/decisions within this country. Two examples which were mentioned in the lecture were the Civil Rights movement and during the Affordable HealthCare Act. It is easy to think that since these two acts passed that the filibuster should be seen as annoying but not destructive. In fact recent examples of the filibuster during Obamas presidency have been a good example of how this tactic can be harmful to this country as a whole.

   During Obama’s presidency the country’s lawmakers have become more polarized, and this tactic has been used to only harm others. This is why there needs to several changes or update to filibuster rules in this country. There needs to be an extension as to how long someone can speak about a certain law should be extended from three to six hours. In these six hours the lawmaker should focus only on the particular law. The idea that this tactic is used to eliminate a law or completely stop it from coming to light should also be eliminated. The use of a filibuster should change from hijacking a law to trying to change the law or explain how this particular isn’t helpful or shouldn’t pass. It should not be used as tactic which defeats ideas or stops laws from being produced.

9. I think the filibuster is a necessary evil because if you have it in place, the minority has a protection against the overwhelming interests of the majority. The negative to the filibuster is abuse of time which thus causes a delay in how many bills are discussed and a slowdown in the lawmaking system. That being said, if you take the filibuster away the minority will not be protected but there will be less delays. It seems that the only thing to really do to protect against the majority overwhelming rule is to keep the filibuster, and the delays are just something to deal with. There can also be reform such as a majority vote instead of a 60 percent rule.

   The best solution I’ve read so far is a “talking filibuster” where the minority can filibuster while talking on the senate floor, versus a “silent filibuster” which requires no effort other than telling the Majority Leader that there are 41 members opposed to a bill. It seems that the silent filibuster is unconstitutional because why take the effort to filibuster while talking on the senate floor, when you can use a silent filibuster instead. It’s elimination would be ideal I think, as many less senators would be willing to delay with an actual talking filibuster.
   Right now the democrats are filibustering against the keystone pipeline, since they feel the republicans aren’t allowing them an adequate defense against the bill and trying to pass it too quickly with their republican majority. So yes, getting rid of the filibuster in this case would have already allowed the pipeline bill to be passed without democrats having their say. I thus see no way to ever get rid of a filibuster and keep fairness in the senate.

10. Even though the option of “filibuster’ has served the nation well in the past in helping the minority issues and shedding light on important legislative arguments, the same can no longer be said when talking about its usage in the modern political climate.

    Looking back at its usage in history, it can clearly be seen what this protection was intended for; which was to protect certain rights of the few against the encroachment of those rights by the many. Since the 1960’s its usage started to rise and in recent times has skyrocketed against all intent and purposes transforming into an instrument of hindrance, obstruction and frustration.

    In the first few years of the 21st century, the number of votes on cloture per Senate term had risen to less then 50. Fast forward to 2010 and the 110th Congress amassed a whopping 112 clotures, underscoring that the sparing usage for which it was formulated has clearly been forgotten.

    It is for these reasons that I think a change in the filitbuster policy is desperately needed. The nature of politics has changed in the past few decades, it is now a place of hostility, turmoil and non-conciliatory behavior hence tools such as filibuster that promoted conciliatory attitudes have become useless. I would back the repeal of this law and propose something that cannot, in the hands of politicians and legislators be so easily disfigured and abused.

11. In my personal opinion, filibuster has been an unethical act of Senator’s. I do not agree with anyone intentionally stalling, so they can stop the government from getting business conducted; deadline for voting on a bill can passed with this type of behavior. This act can essentially kill the bill and makes it so that one or a few senators can knock down legislation they oppose. What happen to having a discussion and bringing it to a fair vote? I guess the name of the game is…Who can talk the longest (about whatever)? Who can stand the longest? It is all about the endurance! These tactics are unfair to the American tax paying folks.

    Senator Thurmond was known as the Filibuster for the Civil Right Act of 1957. Can you imagine if is cowardly act would have work what would the world be today? Please do not get me wrong there are moments in American history when a filibuster tactics was used for good in my personal opinion, but I still think this type of action is wrong and should not be uphold in the chambers. All that time Senator Thurmond took and still the Civil Right Act of 1957 passes in the house.

12. I think that the intentions behind a filibuster are important. It ensures that when legislation is passed, the minority’s point of view is taken into account.

    I find the the video of Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham to be extremely juvenile. As a Senator, Ted Cruz has a right to debate any bill that he does not agree with. His time to speak would definitely be better served by him giving a speech that highlights his objections to the Affordable Care Act. Green Eggs and Ham contributes nothing to this debate.

    I think that the rules of the filibuster should be amended. I think that Senators who filibuster can only speak on the topic of the bill that is being debated. They should not be allowed to talk non-sense.

    I agree with Camille that these tactics are unfair to tax payers. Employees at any organization or company are expected to exhibit professionalism and civility in the work place. As a tax payer who is contributing funds to fund Senators’ salaries, I expect them to spend their time doing valuable work rather than spouting nonsense.

13. The practical use of the filibuster has changed drastically over time. Initially intended as a tool to encourage productive deliberation, the filibuster has turned into a political tool to advance partisanship. The filibuster has been used by the majority party to block bills it is not interested in passing, while the original intention was for use by the minority party to voice their opinions.

    In theory, I believe the filibuster is a good procedure. It does provide the minority opinion the opportunity to discuss the issue at hand if they feel their point is being steam rolled by the majority. Theoretically, the filibuster provides them the opportunity to explain their views to a captive audience with the hope of winning them over. In an ideal situation, the minority view would win over a few votes in this time, and the matter could proceed.

    In order to establish the filibuster as a useful tool, I would recommend changing the rules to only allow relevant discussion. As it currently stands, any stall tactics are permissible during a filibuster – including reading something completely irrelevant, such as a cook book or Green Eggs and Ham. To make it a more productive use of the legislature’s time, I believe topic limits are necessary. This could get tricky if someone is trying to make their case using a far-fetched example, but, if properly regulated, could be effective.

14. I had not heard much about the filibuster, because in my home country of Ukraine, when the minority wants to obstruct an important vote, they just start a riot inside the Parliament: http://www.vox.com/2014/7/25/5936535/why-the-ukrainian-parliament-keeps-devolving-into-brawls

    My first reaction after watching some of the filibusters in action was that it seems like a fun distraction for the Senators, who get to act silly show how much they “care” about a particular issue. Although citizens should be more engaged generally, I can see how a long and entertaining filibuster might serve to bring some important issue to the attention of those who might not otherwise be well-informed.

    But there are so many pressing issues for the Senate to vote on, that I think the modern filibuster today does more ill than good, especially since it has been watered down and does not actually require a Senator to stand at the podium until his or her breaking point. I do not think it should be eradicated entirely, however. I would be in favor of limiting each political party to 5 actual filibusters (with debate relating to the issue at hand) per Congressional session. This would force each party to be selective about which are the most important issues warranting a filibuster, and to stay on message. If they go over 5 filibusters per session, then we institute the Ukraine rule: mortal combat. 🙂

15. The filibuster is the tool that makes the minority voice in the Senate relevant. The filibuster slows down good and bad ideas. In a nation increasingly defined by “my way or the highway” politics, the filibuster requires legislators to build political bridges. It performs an important role by making competing forces—whether ideological, partisan, or regional—work together and find common ground.
    A filibuster is good or bad because it is a last resort for a Minority party to stop a Majority party from passing a bill that the Minority party does not want! For instance, if the Democrats bring up a bill that the Republican do not like, it can pass without any Republican voting for it…and then go to House of Reps for a vote. If the Republicans Filibuster they can delay and cause the bill to be not voted on, therefore gaining a little leverage to get something they need/want in the bill, or kill it all together. It is basically a last ditch effort to prevent a bill from getting voted on.
    I think the filibuster is frustrating, literally and intentionally: It frustrates the will of a simple Senate majority. From a purely situational view, this is infuriating if you are trying to pass crucial legislation or confirm a worthy nominee. It is wonderful if you are trying to block something bad from happening especially if you don’t have the comfortable backstop of a presidential veto.

16. My biggest qualm about the filibuster is that it is no longer about convincing the other party because of ever-increasing partisan politics. The minority should be heard, but should also respect the fact that a majority has been chosen for a reason. The filibuster comes into play because it traditionally allowed for a dissenting opinion to be heard. Now it’s a loophole to persuade others to change their mind.

    But this is normal in politics – we live in a country where some literally follow a Constitution that makes no statements about particular issues at hand. There are experts at work to find slick ways of getting things done. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact anyone? The tactic of the modern filibuster is just one of these methods. Important to note is that this use is modern, from the 1970s onwards.

    One of the key statements of the paper provided is that rules are often just as important for what they don’t say as they are for what they do say. This allows for partisan use of the filibuster. Time limit agreements can be set! But if a party knows that it does not want a certain bill passed, then why agree to a time limit, especially if you’re in the minority?

    Ultimately, I do think the filibuster is a good idea. Partisan politics damage its reputation, but of course, a lot of what happens in the Senate is already discussed, debated, deliberated, and negotiated before proposals are even presented. The threat of a filibuster may encourage this behavior, leading to consensus.

17. As important as deliberation is, actions must be made in order for any nation to move forward. There is a fine line between bipartisan deliberation and deliberate political gridlock,and the failure to distinguish these two is a prominent example of failures in our government. As others have mentioned, the Ted Cruz filibuster is Exhibit A of filibusters gone wrong. Besides being completely immature, Cruz’ speech demonstrated the extent politicians would go to avoid conversation. Tax-payer money pay should not pay a politician’s salary so he can waste crucial Senate time reading Dr. Seuss. It’s no wonder the public morale on politicians is so low.

    The leaders we elect into office must be wise enough to make clear arguments supported by evidence in a respectful fashion. A simple conversation with a high school debate class will create better deliberation in the Senate. The reciprocity, passion and respect for deliberation is a necessary part of good debate. Though I do not think time limits should be set so as not restrain or limit valid arguments, clearer guidelines for argument development and execution will benefit all— especially the millions of people affected by the topics debated.

18. I don’t think the filibuster is to blame for political polarization, rather I believe it’s an obstruction tactic used with increasingly frequency because of the incredibly partisan political climate in which we find ourselves. I think the filibuster is ultimately a good thing, but since it has unfortunately been abused (and has not protected the rights of minorities as much as it has added to political gridlock in recent history), it’s time to re-evaluate the rules of the filibuster as they relate to the rights of the people. After all, the filibuster, as a deliberative political measure, was not explicitly presented by in the Constitution. Since the filibuster was born out of the Senate’s interpretation of the powers the Constitution imparted upon it, it should be an adaptable and dynamic deliberative procedure that changes with the times.

19. Initially the filibuster was introduced as a tactic to protect the minority group from majority always being in control. In theory it seems like a simplistic measure to prevent majority voice from overruling minority all of the time, talking a bill to its death. However, it seems a bit illogical to me. In the video that we saw, the senator Ted Cruz, decided he liked the Story “Green Eggs and Ham” and he then decided to read the famous book to the Senators. Hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars are paying the senators to listen to a children’s story book. The protocol that the senator speaking can talk about anything they want needs to be modified. If I am voting for a bill and someone come along to tell me that the sky is blue and the earth is spinning, I would just be annoyed and want to push my bill even more. For me to like the idea of a filibuster, I would want the person talking this bill down, to talk about all the negative effects this bill will have. I want that person to provide me with valid arguments against it and go on to convince me why I should change my mind and why I am incorrect. This would be a more efficient way to spend our tax money paying these grand salaries.
    Ultimately, the filibuster is a good idea for not allowing majority rule to always win. Someone needs to stand up for the little guys so to speak, but the way it is administered needs to be updated.

Comments are closed.