The filibuster has been defended as a great tradition of the US Senate and a great protection of the right of political minorities against political majorities. But, like any tool or tactic, it can be used for good or ill. Do you think that the filibuster is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing? Why? Would you recommend any changes to the procedure? Consider the article “Filibusters and Cloture in the US Senate” for an account of filibuster procedures and their history in the US Senate if you are at a loss for details.
30 thoughts on “The Filibuster”
Comments are closed.
Some individuals regard the filibuster as a good thing while others criticize it. A filibuster is a tactic that preserves the rights of the minority and assures careful consideration of issues preventing a measure from being brought to a vote. The majority party might seek to shape a bill so that a substantial minority of Senators will not block it with a filibuster. While on the other hand individuals feel it allows the minority to dictate to the majority. An actual extended debate prolongs time permitting a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. I believe that the idea of a filibuster is suppose to be a good thing although like Professor Hoffman has mentioned, it has been overused throughout the years. I believe changing the way filibusters worked by adding the cloture rule was a positive thing and wouldn’t change anything else at this time. The filibuster makes the process fairer by enhancing the opportunity for real debate. With the cloture rule in place setting a time limit on pending matters I believe it has allowed for debate to continue successfully. On major legislation for which filibusters were meant to be used, it creates a better end product that is more likely to be popular among voters.
The filibuster, senate veto or minority veto as it has been called has lead to some comical speeches throughout the years. I do believe that the minority should have some right to show adamant decent of a bill however it should not stall congress. Perhaps lowering the votes needed to a true majority might help. The senate is the house of congress that is supposed to methodically create bills. It should not be in such a way as to prevent passing of a bill that has majority.
Filibustering was originally designed to protect the rights of the minority to extend debate time on a proposal. In the recent years, especially during the Obama administration, we have seen an increased use of filibusters. They are a serious byproduct of party polarization. Instead of a measure of fairness, it has become a tool for obstruction.
Filibustering, as intended, is a good tactic that can allow for careful consideration of legislation passed into law. Overuse of this parliamentary procedure speaks of a more concerning lack of bipartisanship in the Congress.
I would recommend changes to the filibustering procedures that would limit the subject of the conversation to the bill and legislation in question.
The filibuster is ultimately a bad thing and they should end it. First off the Senate is undemocratic as is. New York State has 20 million citizens and Nebraska has two million. And yet both get two votes. Not really fair, if you want to look at equal representation. Plus the filibuster has been totally hijacked by the republicans and is being used to fight everything and anything. It’s ruined the Senate. It’s one reason the Senate has passed the least amount of bills in 80 years. I think they should get rid of the filibuster.
I think the filibuster is a good thing in theory but not so great in practice. While its intention was to protect the rights of minorities and extend debate time, its frequent use reduces productivity in the senate. I think that by adding the cloture rule and limiting the amount of time that can be spent debating an issue the filibuster process is enhanced for the better.
Do you think that the filibuster is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing?
At first the filibuster was instituted to be used to have a balance of fairness for the political minorities to be heard and have a say in the Senate. I believe the creation of the process’s intent was for good. Currently, I believe that filibustering is a “bad thing”. The filibustering process is being used for personal and political agendas and not for the intent of supporting the “smaller voice” of the peoples needs to be represented. I find that the filibustering process has held back alot of potential and progressive change that could have taken place within United States. I think that the procedures that have been applied to the filibustering process helps to keep it contained, as the cloture vote has minimized the “abuse” of the its systematic process. The Senate’s current use of this Filibustering has showed their blatant disrespect for President Obama and his administration. They use this parliamentary procedure to distinctly show where their level of disdain for our President takes priority over serving the American people and changing our nation for the better.
Although a common critique of filibustering today is the overuse of this tactic, I believe that the overall outcome is more positive than harmful. Filibustering is the optimal means for deliberation. This technique allows minority voices in Senate to be relevant and heard. Without such tactics the majority voice would always conquer, and this would not necessarily set forth the most productive system. Although filibustering can also be frustrating if certain parties are attempting to pass crucial legislation, it is always better to be safe than sorry.
One instance in which filibustering deemed to be successful was when Republicans attempted to restrict women’s rights to abortions after 20 weeks in Texas. Wendy Davis, minority democrat, stood up and after a long 11 hours of filibustering was able to reverse and shut down the bill. If filibustering did not occur in this instance, women would have restricted to no access to abortion care in this and surrounding regions. More than half of the available clinics would shut down, and women would be strictly limited in regards to a matter in which they should have a personal say/voice.
I have always found the use of a filibuster to be fascinating. You can potentially stop a bill being passed by just reading the phone book. The framers of the Constitution had several ideas that they thought were going to be helpful, and for a time they were. Now, with the abuse of the filibuster it can be difficult to continue to see its benefits.
It also immediately reminded me of June 2013 when Sen. Wendy Davis, (D-Fort Worth) ran a 13-hour filibuster in an effort to kill a stringent abortion bill (while wearing her now quasi-famous pink shoes). Abortion is a political hot button issue and is likely the type of legislation the filibuster was intended to protect. Despite the feelings a person may have towards abortion, a filibuster is what allowed Sen. Davis to let her ideas be heard in a forum that was otherwise ignoring them. Our Congress was built on the idea of being as fair as possible to the states they represent (the original 13 colonies and for subsequent new states). The House of Representatives was used to have bigger states with a greater population have more representation in order to fully represent the area. The Senate was given two people per state so as to protect the smaller states from constantly being outnumbered by those in the House of Representatives. Even at its inception, the division of the houses was intended to help protect the minority vote.
In order to curtail some of the abuse of using a filibuster, however, there may need to be some rule changes. Perhaps you must always speak on your topic for 3 hours (or a set amount of time) and then have a vote to agree to re-address the issue, rather than waiting for the motion of a cloture vote. In the end, however, not having a filibuster like procedure would cause the minority to almost always be overrun by the majority. In such a divided government as we have now, this would lead to an even greater split of people voting along party lines. Allowing the minority to speak up and make sure other Senators know they are against what is about to be passed into law, at least makes someone have to think about the issue. It may not bring the desired change, but a filibuster does allow for the smaller voice to be heard by the loudest in the room.
I have found that some people look for loop holes. Some people look for the easy way out or want to find ways around things. The filibuster is an example of elected officials looking for a loop hole and obstructing the work of the government. The filibuster was initially instituted to allow the minority to speak and get the minority opinion heard before a vote. The idea was that once the minority was finished presenting their side, a vote could occur. Well of course someone realized there was no time limit and so took advantage of the situation. The fact that the speech doesn’t even have to be on topic is absurd. I think of the work I do and how frustrating it would be try to get work done and improve efficiency if filibustering was permitted. Why is it that most companies are held to high efficiency standards and the Senate is not? Ok so I think at one time the filibuster had a place but no more. And with the 1975 change to allow other work to continue while a filibuster is going on, that’s ridiculous, who would be listening to the minorities opinion (if they were even talking about it). The Senate needs to be held accountable like the rest of us are. And if a Senator has the floor, she needs to be on topic.
A filibuster is a tactic used by the opponents of a bill to block its passage. A Senator may continue to speak indefinitely in an effort to delay or prevent a final vote on the bill. It could be a way for minority party to block legislation, even though the majority party chooses what bills will get a vote. According to uspolitics about.com, by their nature, filibusters elevate visibility of the issue at hand and have, as a by-product, the potential to inspire compromise. To me it seems like a waste of time especially since they can speak about anything like the examples given in the lecture video, reading Green eggs and Ham or the Bible. The decisions made just to stop it from continuing might not be the best one. If the issue at hand was the focus I might agree that it is a god tactic.
A filibuster is a tactic used by the opponents of a bill to block its passage. A Senator may continue to speak indefinitely in an effort to delay or prevent a final vote on the bill. It could be a way for minority party to block legislation, even though the majority party chooses what bills will get a vote. According to uspolitics about.com, by their nature, filibusters elevate visibility of the issue at hand and have, as a by-product, the potential to inspire compromise. To me it seems like a waste of time especially since they can speak about anything like the examples given in the lecture video, reading Green eggs and Ham or the Bible. The decisions made just to stop it from continuing might not be the best one. If the issue at hand was the focus I might agree that it is a good tactic.
Although nothing of substance is usually said during a filibuster and its primary use has been to obstruct the opposing party, I still the think the filibuster is a good thing.
Filibusters are used by both parties. We can’t applaud when someone we like stages a filibuster and then turn around and denounce it when someone we don’t like does it.
Laws, good or bad, should not be passed easily. The point of the filibuster is to give the minority party a voice. If there was no threat of a filibuster, the majority party would be able to pass almost any bill they wanted. No system is perfect and we have to accept all the negative things that can come with it.
Looking at recent filibusters, we can maybe limit what Senators can bring with them in terms of reading material. I think this will force them to improv most of their nonsense and make it harder to continuously talk.
Additionally, I think the 60 votes needed for a cloture should be raised or least switch to a variable amount depending on the how many seats the majority has. If the majority consists of more than 60 seats then it’ll always have enough for a cloture thus giving them the shut down any filibuster. If we were to raise it or change it to a variable amount where it’ll always require a certain percentage of votes from the minority party, it’ll be fairer.
Filibustering is procedural feature of the Senate in which Senators extend their talks or debates for a significant amount of time in order to prevent a bill from being voted upon and ultimately passed. On the one hand, filibustering is an important aspect of the Senate because it follows the Rule XIX, the right to debate. At the same time, however, filibustering limits the passing of many bills. Furthermore, aside from preventing the voting for bills that have already been proposed, filibustering prevents senators from even proposing a bill if they suspect that another senator might filibuster it. Cloture, while seemingly a good solution to filibustering, often does not occur. This is because supporters of the bill that is being filibustered may choose not to turn to cloture and may just give up on the bill.
I would limit the amount of time a Senator could debate. Although there is a limit on the number of times a Senator could debate, there is no limit on the amount of time one can filibuster. By limiting the amount of time, a greater amount of bills could get a chance to be voted upon.
I believed that the Filibuster has its pros and cons, and whether the usage is considered to be good or bad, all depends on the bill that goes through the Senate. If a bill is consider to be bad or not supported by the public, then I believed the filibuster is necessary in order make sure the Senate knows about all the negative aspects. and gives up on passing the bill. However, when it comes to a bill that is efficient, good, and support by the public, there should not be any filibuster tactics being used.
A filibuster, as it has been originally intended, is ultimately a good thing. As many of our classmates have mentioned, a filibuster provides almost a checks and balances between the majority and minority political parties of the senate. Providing the opportunity for minority to speak, regardless of majority opinion, protects their rights to have their issues/concerns heard. I do not favor eradicating the filibuster, as both political parties benefit when the majority power swings back and forth in the senate.
However, the current polarization and incongruences in this administration is resulting in an unusual spike in filibusters from the GOP. Arguably, the GOP is abusing the power of the filibuster to obstruct senate efficiency and legislative process. This is not a good thing. However, I believe there still is hope in preserving the original intention of the filibuster without ridding of it entirely. Instead of having the speaker comply with the germaneness requirement (speaking on topic for the first three hours of the filibuster), it should be required to maintain germaneness throughout the entirety of the filibuster. It is irrational and meaningless, if the point of the filibuster is to preserve minority opinion on a given motion, to have tangential dialogue that has no effect on the motion or bill at play. The ability for Ted Cruz to read Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham when discussing actual important legislative motions and bills is an embarrassment on the American political system.
Ridding the “30-hour post cloture period” will also be beneficial. If the senate does have a supermajority on a cloture to end a filibuster, the entire process can take up to 15 calendar days for the motion to proceed to take effect. The ability for the minority to filibuster twice can lead to one 30-hour post cloture period on the motion, and one 30-hour post cloture periods on the actual bill. If senate reaches a 60-vote majority, I do not see the necessity to prolong the process any further. Eliminating the 30-hour post cloture period can increase efficiency by 7.5, 8-hour senate days!
A filibuster was originally established to create more balance of power by providing a minority of Senators a way to make their voices heard. It was intended for good use in the legislative process. Unfortunately, as U.S. history shows us and current events take place, the filibuster is not being used as positively as its intent. Filibusters also give a tremendous amount of power to individual Senators. Senators have used the filibuster, or the threat to filibuster in order to maximize their leverage with the President or other Senators. Case in point of Senator Cruz. Since Congress has abused the filibuster for ill intent and partisan practice rather than the greater good for its constituents, the practice of filibusters should be ceased.
When reviewing this question, my immediate thought is that the filibuster rule is one that might be noble in theory, but has become seriously abused in recent years. I did some online research to find convincing arguments supporting the need for a filibuster but it seems to me that the most powerful result of a filibuster is the public attention it brings to highlight the minority’s viewpoint. I believe that there has to be a more rational means to this end that doesn’t involve wasting hours of our legislators’ time.
At a loss for convincing arguments to persuade me to change my opinion, I found an article by Steve Chapman in The Chicago Tribune, which highlights many of the problematic issues with filibustering.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-11-24/news/ct-steve-chapman-oped-1124-20131124_1_senate-republicans-filibuster-majority-vote
First of all, I think it is important to note that the filibuster rule is NOT an inherent part of the framers’ original design, but was adopted in the Senate rules in 1806. So the people who claim that this is an inherent democratic right are not exactly well-informed.
The most sobering statistic regarding the filibuster is the increase of its use in the past few decades, as discussed in Professor Hoffman’s video lecture. Per the Chicago-Tribune article: “What was once a last resort in rare emergencies has become a first resort in routine business.” It is not surprising then that this increase in the use of the filibuster coincides with a steady decrease in productivity in the Senate. If it were not so tragic, the state of our partisan Senate would be comical.
I think it’s time to find a more rational way to highlight the minority’s opinion than using a filibuster.
The Filibuster was originally used as a tool to avoid majorities from moving a decision without the input of the minority. In my opinion and with the increase use of this tactic, I think that it is being used as a measure of obstruction. This is evident in the increase use of this tactic in our current Administration. I think that if it were to be a continued, that it would have to be reformed. These Filibusters can go on for days as the procedure states, and even in the example that was given to us in lecture can turn a little ridiculous. Reading Green, eggs, and Ham? Honestly, to do that in a room of professionals in order to make a point seems like a waste of time and our tax paying dollars, and a little insulting to the members. I know what point he was trying to make, but I think he could have achieved the same message approaching it more diplomatically.
I think that possibly changing the amount of votes that are needed could alleviate the polarization of parties and make it a fairer bargain for either continuing or stopping a filibuster in progress.
The way modern politics works makes the filibuster useless, and more of a scheme by an individual politician to get media attention. With such numerous political interests and behind closed door deals swaying the way Senators vote, it would be near impossible to argue that a filibuster would do anything to change votes or encourage deliberation.
In today’s Senate, even the threat of a filibuster moves the Senate to other business, effectively making it a temper tantrum by an individual Senator who can threaten a filibuster and put his fingers in his ears while yelling “la la la I can’t hear you.” Do we really need the Senate chamber to resemble an elementary school playground?
Furthermore, the filibuster has been taken advantage of, and is no longer a tool of the minority against majority oppression. Instead, it is a tool of obstructionism used as a method to stifle deliberation instead of promote it. If a Senator can stand at the podium and recite the words to Green Eggs and Ham, that’s clearly not enhancing deliberative process. Rather, it’s wasting taxpayer money, and using time that could be better used for other issues.
Our founding father’s created the filibuster to protect the minority in senate. It’s never good one one party becomes too powerful. However, over the years, the filibuster tactic has caused some absurd speeches with the goal of blocking votes that may not fit into a certain party’s agenda. While I wouldn’t necessarily say to get rid of the filibuster tactic all-together, I do believe that it has been abused over the years (especially recently). This strategy needs to be revamped so it better serves the public and makes the senate more effective, NOT less effective. Unfortunately, I don’t anticipate that coming to fruition in the near future.
As far I know, filibuster is ultimately a good thing. It protects the voice of minority to prevent tyranny of majority. Although in reality, it could be manipulated by some interest groups to achieve their hidden agenda, we can’t denounce the mechanism per se. It’s like when a person used guns to kill others, we can’t subsequently put the person who invented the gun to prison; similarly we can’t put the condemnation of Nazism on Nietzsche. There exists no absolute truth, each individual has the limitation of reasoning. Opposing voice must be given chances to express before reaching any conclusions, we might not achieve perfect result through deliberation, however, through this mechanism of allowing the diversity of opinions, we can indefinitely approach to the perfectness.
No matter how far the kite goes, the reel is in the hand of the person who’s flying kites. Thus, no matter how long or irrelevant the filibuster goes, “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” can invoke the cloture. However, if there was a regulation for the length and the pertinence of the subject, it might be more efficient.
I find filibustering to be extremely entertaining however I feel that when abused it allows for other foreign countries to pass critical judgment upon us. The over usage makes us looks dumb in the eyes of foreign countries. I believe it does more harm than good. We, as Americans, must preserve our image by all means necessary. We are the leading nation of all nations. We are the leading country of all countries. We must set an example of excellence especially through times of trials and tribulations. Filibustering is a handy tool to use when attempting to get a point across. It should not be used as a platform for a three ring circus act. Over usage is an act of buffoonery and we as Americans on all sides, are better than that. For example, Rand Paul’s 2013 filibustering where he wolfed down a a Snickers and some jelly beans expressed a total lack of respect of for the American public. In addition over usage of filibustering has gotten to the point where the Senate can not function as expressed by Democratic Senator Harkin in an interview with NPR in 2013. He makes a great point when Siegel, NPR correspondent, as he suggested that what comes around goes around meaning that today the Republicans are using the Filibustering tactic but tomorrow Democrats may want to use it. Senate Harkin responded making this statement: “I’m not afraid of democracy. I’m not afraid of majority rule as long as the minority has certain rights, the rights to offer amendments. Not the right to win those amendments, but the right to offer those amendments and to have a debate and a vote on those amendments. I’ve always felt that way. But I do not believe that the minority has some right to absolutely stop everything.” Later on he added that Americans should be held responsible for those that they vote into office and using as an example of that he referred to Roe verses Wade as he stated that “ If people vote for a Republican president that’s going to nominate someone to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, listen, elections should have consequences. People should know, if they’re going to vote that way, they better expect the results.” I totally agree. I think it’s time to hold Americans accountable for their actions. Americans should be pushed to learn more about who they are voting for and what issues are up for debate instead applauding the three ring circus that is televised globally. We must protect our image and in doing so we would more likely gain more creditability around the world while making advances in our foreign and domestic affairs. Now that’s just my opinion.
The filibuster is like every other political tool – if it works for you or your party, it is a necessary and correct process. If it works against you or your party, it needs reform. Senators just need to make sure that they don’t reform away their future advantages because power always shifts.
I googled “longest filibusters” – and filibusters were held on legislation as varied as the Civil Rights bill and the debt ceiling (1981).
I also looked at the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/05/17-bills-that-likely-would-have-passed-the-senate-if-it-didnt-have-the-filibuster/
a 2012 article by Dylan Matthews that looks at bills that might have passed without a filibuster.
In order to make an informed comment on the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the filibuster procedure, I would need a lot more information about history, procedure and options. Right now, it is the procedure in place and the best way to deal with it is to consider tactics and strategies.
I think filibusters are important in that it is meant to protect the rights of the minority but I think it has gone too far and the process needs to be amended. We as Americans pride ourselves in the democratic process so holding up a vote because you personally don’t believe in as issue seems rather ridiculous. All proposed laws should have a chance to be voted on by our senators and filibusters at times make this difficult to happen. As cruel as it might seem, democracy is ruled by the majority so even though I am all for protecting the rights of the smaller guy, that is not the democracy this country is built on.
Filibustering makes its known to the rest of the world that we can’t even agree on the democratic process our country is suppose to be run on. A filibuster is a childish act by someone who is afraid they will not get their way. Let issues go to the floor and be voted not just when we believe were going to get a decision that we favor but at all times. We can’t choose democracy when it suits us and hold up the process when we believe we will not get our way.
I want to change my filibuster comment – or rather I want to add to it. Last night I was feeling exceedingly cynical about the political process. This morning, I am feeling cynical in a different way. I just finished the Gastil reading – and I found it interesting – especially the part about the Supreme Court. I have listened to a lot of snippets of Supreme Court hearings recounted by Nina Totenberg (go NPR) and I also visited went to watch a hearing when my cousin was clerking for Scalia (don’t hold it against me). I was struck then and now by how much trust the people (as in “the people”) have in the Supreme Court. What I have seen and heard was strikingly boring. But we trust that the Justices are deliberating somewhere in a productive fashion. We TRUST. For whatever reasons – rightly or wrongly – we (and excuse me for speaking so generally) seem to have lost the feeling of trust for our elected officials. And in that context, the filibuster – or something else – is going to be inevitable. We don’t trust, they grandstand. We watch. They don’t deliberate. This idea of deliberation can be bigger than a face to face situation. It can be national. And we are not having it. And a big part of this is “our” fault – that is the electorate. I’m not talking about voting. I’m talking about the part of our responsibility to be informed and demand thoughtful public deliberation WITH us – not to us. So – maybe I’m not less cynical this morning – just more energetic.
I believe the Filibuster is an interesting but also important tool in the parliament procedures. Even though there have been moments in history that people have abused with it, I think overall it is an important option/right to have. I guess I am one of those people who believes in the “protection of the right of political minorities against political majorities” part of the filibuster. I believe it is better to have an option/right, even if it does give someone at some point the option to abuse with it, than not have it at all.
The Filibuster was originally used as a tool to avoid majorities from moving a decision without the input of the minority
The filibuster has been defended as a great tradition of the US Senate and a great protection of the right of political minorities against political majorities. But, like any tool or tactic, it can be used for good or ill
Better have the right and allow for some to abuse with it m than not have it at all.
Ok I officially hate blogs @Baruch. My comment above consists of only the first paragraph but somehow my computer at the computer lab went crazy.
I wanted to add that they should keep the filibuster as a procedure but they should fix ; for example there should be a limited time of how long a person can speak and also the speaker should stick with the subject only, not be allowed to talk about anything else.
Filibusters give the minority side a chance to speak, however I would like to see a moderator to ensure that the debate stays on topic. For example in a court room proceeding when a lawyer starts to discuss something that has no bearing on the case the opposing side objects and the judge makes a ruling. The senate majority and minority leader could discuss the bearing of the argument on the car and come to a consensus if off topic. Filibusters should not be used as a tactc to simply were down the opponent because that in itself doesn’t serve a useful purpose.
Like anything, too much of a “good” thing can easily turn bad. The intention of the filibuster to protect the minority is admirable and at times has been an important tool to do just that. However, in today’s Senate that gets along as well as a bunch of touchy 4 year-olds in a sandbox and is badly fractioned, the filibuster gets abused. We see videos surface of Senators reading Dr. Seuss among other ridiculous things and this halts progress instead of moving conversation and bills forward. I like Nikolina’s suggestion that filibustering procedures should be limited to the subject of the conversation to the bill and legislation in question. This way we don’t get rid of an important procedure, while also keeping things more on track and productive.
The filibuster must be considered for the many ways it affects the debate process. The article Professor Hoffman provided notes: “The ability of Senators to engage in filibusters has a profound and pervasive effect on how the Senate conducts its business on the floor. In the face of a threatened filibuster, for example, the majority leader may decide not to call a bill up for floor consideration, or to defer calling it up if there are other, equally important bills that the Senate can consider and pass without undue delay. Similarly, the prospect of a filibuster can persuade a bill’s proponents to accept changes in the bill that they do not support, but that are necessary to prevent an actual filibuster. ” In other words, because the threat of a filibuster always looms over the Senate, Senators place an emphasis on passing legislation that can be passed. If the filibuster were eradicated, would the Senate be even less effective by deliberating endlessly on bills that will never pass?