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.
23 thoughts on “The Filibuster”
Comments are closed.
It is impossible to deny the importance of the filibuster in the United States Senate. As stated, it was designed by the Framers of the Constitution to act as a protection for a minority of the population. Since the original colonies broke away from a government they viewed as too tyrannical and powerful, it only makes sense that the framers include a provision to make sure a certain faction of the population does not impose too much power over the other minority groups. It is hard to argue against this point, protection of a minority party. However, I believe the filibuster has been abused to the point that it is more of a hindrance to deliberation and policy making than a decent procedural rule for the Senate.
As with many other of my classmates, I have grown up politically in an era of party polarization. As apart of this, the filibuster has been used tremendously by the minority party in the Senate to prevent the deliberation or vote on a proposed bill. It is hard not to be frustrated by this process as it prevents meaningful change to societal ills (Though it also depends on one’s political theory if its’ the governments place at all to address public issues). The use of the filibuster has been used from a range of issues relating to legislation and nominations from the Executive Branch. I believe the filibuster has become too much of an impediment on legislating that this procedural rule must be altered, though it is considered a time-honored rule that should never change. I understand and believe in the need to have protections for minority factions. However, what is the point of electing a majority body if they cannot bring legislation to the floor with interference from the minority party? Why bother having a majority and minority party in the Senate if one party or several individuals block progress altogether?
I propose one specific change to this procedure. I would like to eliminate the first filibuster on the consideration to move the bill forward. This is the largest impediment to deliberation as a bill cannot come to the floor for a debate unless 60 senators vote to advance the legislation. What does it say about our system that our Senate cannot advance proposed laws for debate? It is one thing to delay the vote, it is another idea entirely to prevent a deliberating body the ability to debate a bill on the Senate floor.
I have mixed feeling concerning the filibuster. The use of this cheap tactic falls under the heading of sabotage. I guess it is the motivation behind the need to use this type of strategy that is the true measure of necessity. In the movie Mr. Smith goes to Washington the filibuster was used by a good man with honest intentions. Ted Cruz I’m not so sure. The filibuster’s use can also be used to bring attention and prolonged discussion in the mass media which is basically free publicity. I also believe that Cloture vote was a necessary intervention. Why should the whole system be held hostage.
I think the filibuster is an important tool that has more recently been taken advantage of for means other than the initial reason for its creation. While the filibuster has been utilized by minority groups alike, and often for good reason, it also acts as an impediment to progress. The filibuster often delays the inevitable and does so without actually bringing anything to the table (i.e. reading Dr. Seuss–a great book, but surely not the time or place to be read aloud).
The decision in the 1970s to create a 2-Track system was extremely clever, but also demonstrates the ridiculousness of filibustering. Creating this system enabled other work to be accomplished without remaining at a standstill based on one person holding the floor. On the other hand, the fact it was necessary to create a separate plan based on the fact that one person could hold the floor for such a long period of time without making any impact demonstrates how many steps backwards our political system has taken.
As in the case of most government procedure, certain limitations and exceptions are put in place to protect those which the law is meant to serve. The filibuster, an obstructive tactic used to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote is an important tool used in government, which is designed to protect the minority voice. This measure is important to prevent a tyranny of the majority and maintain minority rights. A filibuster also helps prevent rushing through controversial legislation while both sides debate the reasons to oppose or support a bill.
Although the filibuster provides important protections to those that it was created for, the system more often than not is taken advantage of and abused. Those that wish to prevent a bill from being passed or even brought to a vote will use the filibuster as a means of wasting time and pushing their own agenda. While the filibuster was enacted with good intention, it has become an obstacle, which halts the momentum of government and the progress of people.
It is important to note, however; that for every measure that gives power, there is an equal tool for taking it away. Cloture, a procedure for ending a debate and taking a vote is an effective way to end the misuse of a filibuster. Cloture is invoked when three-fifths of all sworn-in senators vote for the cloture motion.
I believe that filibuster and cloture are decent representations of our fundamental system of checks and balances. Although the system is not without its fault, our government institutions allow for equal opportunity and dismay tyranny amongst those in power. Unfortunately, we cannot prevent all people from seeking personal advantage through the system, however; we can continue to provide a framework for operating that allows for the greatest good.
This in fact is my first time to get to understand filibusters. I would very much appreciate the existence of such a tool for the minority to make its last effort to delay or prevent a vote. In essence, it is a good thing if our politicians use it effectively for the good of the whole society. But the prevalence of the filibusters in the US Senate in the recently years may warm us that the Senate has become a ground for partisan war, but not a forum for serious deliberation. I acknowledge the differences of the personality traits between the two major parties. But the Senate should be a venue for bipartisan compromise. Overuse of the filibusters not only wastes our scarce resources but also tears apart our political system.
The complication is that today’s minority may become the majority in the next election. Republicans initiated excessive filibusters during Obama’s administration, and then there was a filibuster reform in 2013 to limit the use of this tool. Now Republicans took control of the Senate again. They would definitely stay at the status quo or even further limit the use of the filibusters. I would not recommend any changes at this moment and wait to see the effects of the filibuster reform of 2013. The presidential election in 2016 may also change the tactics of both parties used in the Congress.
Although the filibuster has many times been taken advantage of, I think that overall it is an important part of the Senate. When first looking at the filibuster, it appears that nothing important is being accomplished and time is being wasted. However, it actually plays a very important role in protecting the rights of the minority. For example, during a Senate meeting, the majority party could constantly bring motions that are in their favor to a vote, and achieve that majority vote nearly every time. If a motion comes to a vote that that the minority feels strongly about, and one that they know will receive the vote it needs to succeed, a member of that party has the opportunity to filibuster so that that motion will not come to a vote. Furthermore, the filibuster is another necessary check and balance. Members of the minority may many times feel that their voice is not being heard during a meeting, and a filibuster may be the only way to remedy that. If the filibuster is done away with, the rights of the minority party are no longer protected. The majority party can officially run the Senate while the minority party feels squandered and unable to voice their opinion.
That is not to say that the filibuster is a perfect procedure. While it may be effective at protecting minority rights, it is certainly ineffective when it comes to deliberation. The filibuster makes it so deliberation can no longer occur. Only one person is voicing their opinion for hours on end, and no one else is able to speak. Deliberation requires everyone to be able to state what they think, and all different viewpoints need to be considered before a decision is reached. That is certainly not being done during a filibuster. In addition, many times the issue at hand is no longer discussed at all after a certain period of time, as we saw with Ted Cruz reading Green Eggs and Ham. However, while the filibuster is clearly not a good thing for deliberation, I think it plays an important part in protecting minority rights in the Senate.
In theory the filibuster promotes good intentions- protecting the right of the political minority. In 2013 Wendy Davis used the filibuster to bring national attention to a bill effectively banning abortion in Texas. For ten hours Wendy Davis took the floor of the Texas senate and argued against the bill. Her filibuster earned (brief) national attention and brought this major issue into discussion across the country. Just a few months later, Ted Cruz held his “famous” Dr. Seuss filibuster and unfortunately this is the filibuster people remember most.
Republican Senator Mitch McConnell was once an avid support of the filibuster – dedicating time and energy towards blocking Democratic bills through this procedure. This week, now that the filibuster can be utilized by the Democrats in a Republican controlled Congress, has vowed to now spend time and energy changing the practice of the filibuster. It’s this back and forth that makes it seem as if the filibuster is both ineffective and inefficient. Initially designed to bring attention again a bill, it is now used as a political tactic, simply to push a specific political agenda rather than deal with the bill at hand. In a politically polarized Congress, the filibuster should be eliminated or re-evaluated by an independent party. At this point, neither Republicans or Democrats would be able to fairly re-evaluate or change the filibuster procedures and the discussion would be open for debate every time the majority party changes in Congress.
Filibusters are a good phenomenon and help the minority party to hold power and block a legislation even though the majority party gets to take a call on what bills will come on the floor of the Senate and be scheduled for voted. (Berger, ND) It was created with a vision to have a federal government with well thought out checks and balances and is a major foundation stone of building America as a democratic country. It provides equal right to the majority and the minority to express themselves.
In 1917, the senators adopted a methodology to end a filibuster wherein if a two- third vote/ 60 votes is cast, then the filibuster is ended. This Rule 22 is called “Cloture”. But still this Cloture rule is not very effective against a filibuster as achieving two- third votes is a challenge (even after five decades since the rule’s introduction).
From 1917 to 1975, the majority votes that were needed to revoke a cloture was 67 which was reduced to 60 votes post 1975. But, it has been noticed that even 60 vote is still a high number of vote required to halt a filibuster and hence, as a result of the difficulty in achieving the 60 vote target for cloture to take place, it is recommended and in consideration, that the vote margin for ending a filibuster be reduced to 55 votes.
I think that it is important that there is some kind of rule in place to protect the minority party. In theory the filibuster is a good idea. This prevents the majority party from making radical change that is strongly opposed by the minority party. Historically, this was something that was used infrequently, but now it has been so widely abused that it is used on almost all legislation and nominations. In a sense, rather than protecting the minority, it is allowing the minority to exert a tyranny on the government and halt all progress.
I think that some kind of change needs to be made, but I’m not really sure exactly what that change should be. I think that now is an ideal time to look at changing the rules though. We are entering a time when we are unsure of who will be the next majority political party. With the upcoming presidential election, now may be a good time for both parties to come together and work on rules that would work for both of them. As they are not sure if they will be in the minority or the majority, they will be looking at the best options no matter what side of the playing field they end up on.
I have mixed views on whether or not the filibuster is good or bad. I want to be in support of the political minority, and I believe that their needs to be some type of formal procedure to ensure that every person has a chance to have his or her voice heard. However, I am unsure if the filibuster is the right tool. With the filibuster, those who are in the political minority are given the opportunity to have their voices heard. At the same time, while they are speaking on this issue for an extended period of time, they are limiting or preventing their peers in political majority from voting. Essentially, in the process of having their voices heard, the minority are also limiting the voices of the majority. Hence why, I have mixed feelings on this procedure.
Nevertheless, if the filibuster is going to continue, I do think that there should be some adjustments to the procedure. I am happy to hear that the votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, that is one change that can limit the time spent filibustering. Likewise, I think may be helpful to propose time limitations, so that members can have their voice heard, but not continually speak for hours on end. I want to know that everyone has the opportunity to have their opinion heard, but I think it should be within a reasonable amount of time and respectful to their fellow Senators.
The Founding Fathers imagined Congress to be a body that would have debates similar to those of the 18th or early 19th century. Hence the concept of filibuster in which members of a house get to not only debate but deliberate a bill or an amendment. We are certainly far removed from that concept as Congress rarely debates (perhaps due to the fact that they only work 133 days out of the year) or that most of the deliberative process is done in committees.
Filibusters (like some tactics) are certainly abused but also effective. It is effective in the sense that it stalls or kills a bill coming to vote but abused because other Senators have to listen to their colleague(s) read recipes, telephone books, or give long winded speeches. The implementation of cloture certainly helps move the process along but it essentially only works if there is a majority party. Let’s keep in mind that the Democrats may invoke cloture on a Republican filibuster when they have the majority while the Republicans may also do the same with Democrats who are the minority. Overall, the threat of a filibuster might just kill a bill before it even comes up for a vote because no one wants to endure the tedious process.
It seems as though filibusters are like most political tools that were put in place with good intentions, but can be subject to abuse. Under the original concept of empowering the minority while placing more pressure on the majority it would be hard to argue that the filibuster wasn’t important. By providing a time for the smaller voices to be heard it made sure that the legislature that was being passed was being properly debated and vetted by those elected. Recently though, it seems as if the filibuster has been used as a way to draw attention away from the actual issue being debated and elevate individuals seeking attention. It is inspiring and powerful for an elected official to stand before their peers and speak passionately about causes they believe in to try and sway opinions and votes. It is quite disheartening to see politicians simply read the phone book or try and discover where Sam will eat his breakfast meat.
The answer to the question of whether filibuster is a good thing or bad thing depends on the issue. In general, however, i think it is a bad thing because it is a waste of time and there is no guarantee that anything significant decision will be able to come out it. Filibuster is a tool used too hold off an issue from being voted on. For example, Senator Rand Paul took the Senate floor and filibuster the Patriot Act renewal. Those who agree with him will take this as a good thing. And those who disagree with him will view this negatively. Ultimately, it depends who is for and against the issue, in Senator Rand Paul’s case, the Patriot Act renewal.
The filibuster is a great tool that is critical to preserving the Senate’s role as the bulwark against radical change. The US House is designed to be highly responsive to populist sentiment and can pass anything with a simple majority, but the Senate was always meant to add a higher level of scrutiny to proposed legislation. The 60 vote threshold ensures that Congress can only pass bills that command a real majority of the peoples’ representatives, and by extension the people themselves.
Presently, the United States is so hotly divided, that the filibuster is more important than ever. The passage of Obamacare without a single Republican vote was unfortunate, and virtually ruined the President’s power to build bipartisan consensus, very early on in his presidency. The unchecked power Senate Democrats enjoyed at that time was quickly corrected by voters when a Republican was elected in a special election from Massachusetts of all places!
Now that Republicans control the Senate, it is Democrats who are enjoying the benefits of the filibuster by protecting the president from having to veto what would otherwise be an enormous number of bills. In fact to date, only the Keystone XL Pipeline bill has reached the president’s desk, necessitating a veto.
With respect to changes, I think it would be better if the “speaking filibuster” was required more often to truly test the willpower of the opposition. The invisible procedural filibuster that exists today makes it a little too easy for the minority to block everything, as opposed to the majority’s marquee legislation.
The Filibuster tool is a staple of Congressional politics and when used correctly can help not only prevent a majority from abusing the minority party but can cause such a controversy that the media and shortly after, the public pick up on the issue. But with most things whether it is a good or bad tool depends entirely on how one uses it. If the tool is being used by someone like “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” then sure the filibuster is being used for a good cause and trying to prevent harmful legislation, however, as we have seen in recent times the filibuster has become a political joke. An example would be Rand Pauls recent filibuster against the Patriot Act was used a political pawn to get him publicity and help build his credibility for a Presidential run.
He even sold T-Shirts afterwards!
Overall I believe the Filibuster is useful tool that when used appropriately, can keep issues on an even playing field. For some policy issues that contain an element of ethics, it may not be beneficial to look at the issue from solely a minority and majority prospective. A minority group should never be unheard when it comes to issues that affect them directly.
The Filibuster allows a minority group to stress the importance of issues that they feel need to be addressed. Delaying a vote by putting yourself out there in front of the entire senate is a great way to show how committed you or your party is to an issue. This right can of course be abused. An issue that will arise is what deserves a filibuster and what does not. The policy of the 2-track system is a great way to combat this issue, but does not entirely address the overall delays of filibustering.
The Filibuster was intended a great protection of the “right of political minorities against political majorities” but as with another rules and laws, it has been used not it the ways that the founding fathers intended it to be used. The filibuster nowadays is not even used as a mode of deliberation but only to block legislation and i can only think of Ted Cruz speech against the Affordable Healthcare Act and went on about Dr Seuss Green Eggs and Ham and it had nothing to do with deliberating the issue which made the Filibuster a joke to many, including myself even though it allows them to speak on the issue. Ultimately it depends on how it is used by both parties and the issues at hand. I would recommend ending the notion that they be allowed to speak on any topic beside the issue because unless the topic is related, they shouldn’t be allowed and the reason for using the filibuster is prevent the measure from being brought up to vote and they should have a legitimate reason, not some children’s book.
When there is no other senator is speaking, a senator has the right to the floor and may speak for as long as he or she wishes. This seems to be a good idea but when it becomes the case of ‘filibustering’ the senator can use it as a tactic to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. Obviously the question arises whether it can be used for good intention or for an abusive manner. The problem is, there are both good and bad examples of filibustering in the history. Even the two examples mentioned in the lecture video, can be considered as an effective one (Mr Smith goes to Washington) or waste of time (Senator Ted Cruz reads “Green eggs and hams”, 2013) although Mr Cruz’s time was limited. Undoubtedly filibuster means good intention especially for the protection of the right of the political minority. But, like any tool, there are several examples that it is being abused. The abusive application of filibustering is evident from several effort to avail a way to end it. In 1917, the senator came up with a mean to end the debate by invoking cloture which required two-third of the senators to cast their vote. Currently it is set to three-fifth but still it difficult to achieve to end filibustering intended for an abusive motive.
Before expressing my opinion what I feel about filibustering, I would like to focus on the fact that as filibustering still exist, so it is recognized as a needed tool. Senators are human and public figures who are expected to be true to their morality and bound by their conscience. With this expectation, practice like filibustering can be effective, but problem occurs when a person decides to abuse this privilege. Saying that, I strongly support filibustering as there are many examples in the history when a representative from the minor political party used filibustering to raise concern for or against a bill which later on was proved to worthwhile. We cannot accuse the method if it is abused, because it is always the responsibility of the individual to make sure that it is used for goodness. In my opinion, there should be measure to stop ‘bad filibustering’. In my understanding, when a senator from the major political party engages in filibustering, it is more difficult to manage three-fifth of the votes. So, if it is found that filibustering is mostly abused by the senator from the major party, the vote ratio should be reduced to half which may enable fewer voters of the minority party to end the filibustering. Moreover, there can be a set time limit for every senator complete his/her speech. If he/she needs more time, he/she has to postpone for a certain amount of time before the filibustering senator can continue. But the most important thing could be to form a small body of senator from all party with equal number of members, who will object if any member of the senator talks anything out of context.
We are now unfortunately at a point in time where, due to the high level of partisanship and polarization in government, we have politicians abusing tatics such as the filibuster to no end in a game of one-up’s manship against the rival political party. This game has proven to be detrimental to the nation as a whole, putting government in gridlock and holding everyone back from tackling very serious problems that our country has to deal with.
However, just because an existing tactic can be viciously abused doesn’t mean that we should just get rid of it altogether. It is in keeping with the tradition of the Senate in dealing with pending legislation in a more careful manner (as opposed to the House). And, it has importance in regards to the protection of minority rights. I feel that, in terms of any changes, those who deploy this tactic should be kept to speaking about the issue itself and topics germane to the issue. A procedure should be put in place to stop the filibuster if the Senator in question breaks this rule.
Ultimately the filibuster serves a useful purpose, but as with any tool or tactic, it can and has been abused. Often times it has been used as a tool to delay progress, and requires sixty votes in the Senate to overcome it.
However, an exemplar of how the effectiveness of the cloture is when Senate Democrats and Republicans overcame Ted Cruz’s infamous filibuster against a stopgap spending bill, finally allowing for full funding of Obamacare in 2013 (Washington Times, 2013). Ted Cruz had vowed to speak on the Senate floor until he was no longer able to stand (USA Today, 2013). Strom Thurmond was on the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes, speaking against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Neither Cruz nor Thurmond were successful, given the protection of the cloture.
Works Cited
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/24/famous-filibusters/2865907/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/27/senate-defeats-cruz-filibuster-clears-way-obamacar/?page=all
The filibuster serves an important purpose, as was stated in the lecture video, giving a voice to the minority opinion. If this option were not available, there is a good chance many people’s thoughts would simply be passed over and dismissed, and the filibuster forces the Senate to actually listen. At times, filibustering really toes the line in terms of compromising the true quality of the deliberations at hand. In the Steffensmeier and Schenck-Hamlin reading, the importance of “considerations of the common good, [and] respect for other participants” is emphasized as key components to engaging in ethical discourse. Filibustering in the past, when the rules dictated that the speaker could go on as long as his knees did not touch the floor, ran a real risk of straying from the germane, defeating the original purpose of having the speakers thoughts heard and considered seriously. I think that today though the filibuster is a good thing because recent regulations and the cloture rules have evolved to allow it to be used for it’s purpose of making a bold point while simultaneously ensuring that it does not allow the speaker to ramble on forever about unrelated issues, and it does not hinder the planned activities of the Senate.
When the founding fathers drew up the constitution, there were two main concerns, the tyranny of the majority, and the tyranny of a powerful government. To prevent a powerful government the founders set up a constituon, with checks and balances on other branches, this makes change painstakingly slow. To protect from the tyranny of the majority, the only directly elected officials were the House of Representatives, all other federal officials were originally indirectly elected.
At the time, it was understandable that the founders put in so many checks and protections, but today they seem outdated. The founders feared the tyranny of the majority, because they thought they would expropriate property because they were from a lower class. In actuality none of this has occurred, and the founders fears, however well intended, are woefully outdated in modern America. Filibuster is another prime example of this, repeatedly it has been used for the wrong, and even immoral purposes, such as in opposition to the civil rights acts. It has also been used increasingly over the years, to a point where every bill in Congress needs 60 votes. Even presidential appointments are near impossible to be done; this is why Harry Reid took the “nuclear option” and suspended filibuster in order to get appointments through. It is quite clear that filibuster needs drastic reform. The senate was intended to be a debating body, but the filibuster has undermined this, to the point where parties will only show up if they have a filibuster proof majority to pass a bill. I am in favor for permanently getting the rid of the filibuster, and restoring a congress that is accountable to elections, and can get things done.
The Filibuster was originally practiced as an instrument l to prevent majorities from moving a decision without the contribution of the minority. From my point of view, I think that it is being used as a degree of obstruction. This is obvious in the proliferation usage of this approach in our current Administration. I think that if it were to be remained, that it would have to be improved. These Filibusters can go on for days as the process states, and even in the sample that was given to us in lecture can turn a little incredible. Reading Green, eggs, and Ham? Honestly, to do that in a room of specialized in order to make a point seems like a waste of time and our tax paying dollars, and a little offensive to the fellows. I know what point he was trying to make, but I think he could have accomplished the same message approaching it more tactfully. I believe that probably shifting the extent of votes that are needed could improve the separation of parties and make it a fairer bargain for either continuing or discontinuing a filibuster in progress.