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.
22 thoughts on “The Filibuster”
Comments are closed.
It was said the US Senate is the saucer the hot tea of US House cools upon. The concept being the ever changing popular rule of the US House must be tempered by a more stable body. The US Senate had always been seen as the stabilizing force in Congress, while parties trade control of both chambers year after year the Senate and its filibuster rule stabilized procedure by require more than a simple majority for great change. Today the filibuster is being gravely misused by Senators of both parties to force government into inaction, but in my opinion destroying an emergency break that is overused does not make a car run better. The filibuster is a procedural maneuver meant to protect the minority from the majority, and without this protection we will live at the mercy of an ever changing majority. Reforms are needed to prevent the overutilization of the filibuster but the procedure should remain in place.
One might agree that the filibuster is a good thing. One of its most important attributes are that it enhances the possibility for a debate, compromises and other procedural norms. Henceforth, its practices can surely improve the deliberative process. It ensures that the minority gets its chance at impacting a decision or to contribute at improving a result on general matters. It is, thus, a great thing for the rights of political minorities.
On the other hand, in recent cases, the filibuster has been overused in even the most routine matters from both republicans and democrats. Filibusters, depending on which political party holds the majority or minority hand, can be used for odious purposes as for instance to block certain legislations but also judicial appointments. Hence, this abuse of power, makes the system undemocratic, therefore no longer using the need for check and balances on which the constitution was partly created.
Therefore, analyzing both pros and cons, one may opt for changes or eradication. To think of changes or restructuring would mean to decrease the frequent use of filibusters, to perhaps reduce the number of senators to invoke cloture or on all matters ( 60 votes). We might also consider imposing a time frame for voting for a Senator while, of course, ensuring there will indeed be a final vote on a legislation.
Nonetheless, assuming that these changes do occur, what are the certitudes that filibusters won’t go back to its frequent and abuse of power practices? It would go against Madison’s principle of systems of checks and balances that is pro maintaining a balance of power between political factions. More so, what are the odds that filibusters would still be effective when there is evident increased political polarization coexisting between both our parties? Taking into account these factors, would it be wise to keep it? I stand for its eradication.
In an ideal world filibuster protects the minority from the majority. This is helpful when on the side of the minority. This aids the minority regardless of whether the motion at hand is for the common good or not. When the expected decision is actually for the common good and the minority filibustering is aiming to thwart it then the majority is held hostage by the minority.
Protection of minorities is needed but also balance and productive deliberation if the system is to work. I support the rule that any senator speaking should have all the time needed to explain and make a point on the topic being discussed. However reading the phone book or Green Eggs and Ham is neither on the topic nor productive. I don’t support filibustering and prefer instead an a tighter system of cloture that still allows for and protects a speaker taking all the time needed to make a point but ends the wasted time sooner to move on to productive deliberation.
The filibuster is a strange phenomenon. The usage of a filibuster appears very unproductive since it removes the structure of productive decision making. Unlike Robert’s rules of focusing on one item for a certain period of time and working on resolving an issue at a time, filibusters allow for the topic at hand to be defer. If the topic at hand is interrupted by a filibuster can a true resolution to the topic be reached?
I find that the filibuster is ultimately a bad thing. It seems like a waste of time and I can’t comprehend exactly how it allows for a constructive resolution of the topic at hand. I believe it leads to unthoughtful voting for the sake of terminating the discussion of the topic. Rather than a filibuster, I would recommend a space for experts to be allowed to report findings and facts that can be used to make an informative decision on the topic. The time in which the expert presents would be more productive and allow for an informative decision to be made.
Ultimately, anything can be perverted and misused, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad in and of itself. The filibuster is no exception: it enables political minorities to take as much time as needed in order to maintain the process of deliberation, promote negotiation of terms and compromise, and protect their right against political majorities by ensuring everything they want to discuss is presented. Using the filibuster as a tactic to “wear out the opposition” by means of senseless jargon such as reading the phone book, religious scripture, or children’s stories which have nothing to do with the important topics being discussed is shameful and unnecessary. It does not provide any substance to the political minority’s argument, and does not help their cause in any way aside from wasting everyone’s time. Based on the chart which illustrated the increasing frequency of filibusters being used in the Senate, as well as the reasons for recent filibustering, it is apparent that this process is being abused.
Although I do not think it would be wise to eliminate the filibuster, but I do think some new rules should be established. Take for example the clip from, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” in which Mr. Smith makes a prolonged, yet compelling and relevant speech, (to the point where he faints from exhaustion and more than likely, dehydration). Although the speech he gave went on endlessly, everything he said was pertinent to the matter at hand. On the other hand, we have Senator Cruz who, for lack of anything relevant to add to his argument, reads Green Eggs and Ham to stall the Senate from proceeding on the matter. This is such a ludicrous means of engaging in political discourse and should prompt a reevaluation of the process. Wasting everyone’s time by reading through an encyclopedia or a favorite children’s story should not be permitted as it will never lead to true and effective deliberation and is an abuse of power by the minority. Eradicating the filibuster, on the other hand, would strip the protection of the right of the political minority and would likely lead to abuse of power by the majority. I think that a speaker should be given as much time to discuss a point as would be needed as long as the discussion is relevant to the point being addressed.
Today’s use of the filibuster directly contradicts the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. It has made the Senate increasingly dysfunctional and ineffective. The filibuster was initially conceived as a way to ensure that minority opinions were heard and understood before the Senate voted on an issue. This rule when not abused can facilitate productive deliberation, it allows unlimited debate on an issue before the Senate.
In today’s senate filibusters allow the minority to sabotage the majority party, making the majority unpopular. The minority then reap the rewards from voters’ dissatisfaction. Predictably politicians have abused the procedure so much so that it has resulted in intense and debilitating gridlock in Congress. I personally do not think the filibuster rule should be changed because politicians will surely find another way to abuse the system no matter the changes. Reforms should focus on making senators who have placed personal political agendas above the work of government with no consequence so far to be required to actually make a case to their colleagues and their constituents for their actions.
As society changes, people have drastically changed over time as well. The use of the filibuster was initially used to encourage creative deliberation, but now it is used as a political tool to progress political leanings. The filibuster is used to block bills that are not interested in passing, while the original purpose of its use is for minorities to influence their opinions. I believe the filibuster is a good and bad procedure because one, it provides minorities opportunities to voice their opinion when the majority overpowers them; second, it stalls bills or stops the government from passing the bill. I would adjust the rules for using the filibuster by having the Senators speak what is relevant to the topic of the bill that is being debated. Ted Cruz was reading Green Eggs and Ham that had nothing to do with his objections about the Affordable Care Act. Senators should not be allowed to talk nonsense. It is unfair to see these debates, because these tactics are unfair to tax payers. You would expect professionalism, yet you see these Senators spew out nonsense while we contribute our funds.
There are cases where Filibusters have failed for a good cause. Here’s a link that discusses the longest Filibuster of all time:
http://www.businessinsider.com/longest-filibuster-in-history-strom-thurmond-rand-paul-2013-3
The article discusses the longest filibuster of all time by Sen. James Thurmond, who went on for 24 hours and 18 minutes in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957. During the filibuster, Thurmond read the voting laws of each one of the 48 states, U.S. criminal code, Supreme Court decision and Declaration of Independence. Along with the material he read, Thurmond allowed others to make short remarks and ask questions during his time, allowing him to take breaks and continue his recording break filibuster (Hickey, 2013). Luckily, the Senate passed the bill and was not influenced by Thurmond’s oratorical marathon. Although Thurmond’s filibuster attempt failed, one cannot take the process of of filibustering lightly. What would have happened if Thurmond successfully persuade the Senate not to pass the Civil Rights Act? What are the implications and consequences of opposing the bill? The filibuster may be good or bad depending on the situation at hand. In Thurmond’s case, it was good that the votes did not change and the bill was passed. If it was the other way around, where Thurmond wanted Senate to pass the bill in response to their opposition, then the filibuster may be seen as a good tactic.
In theory, the idea of a filibuster is a procedure that I would recommend because it is there to protect the rights of the minorities. As shown in the lecture when Jeff Smith uses the filibuster, it is to bring attention and a certain level of recognition to a cause that he feels strongly about. However, when I watched the Ted Cruz video, it felt like the use of the filibuster became something of a time filler. He’s reading a Dr. Seus book during his debate to counter the push for Obamacare. Also in looking at the example you gave – in 1967, Senator Thurmond stalled the civil rights legislation. In looking at these examples, I feel strongly that although the idea of a filibuster is meant to give minorities a force in the senate, it hasn’t always been used in such manner.
In addition, the “two track system” – makes the filibuster even less effective. If a senator is using the filibuster to bring attention to a serious issue that matters to the minorities, it may not attract a lot of attention because the senate will continue to function and deal will other business while that specific issue is stalling. I do not think it is something that’s productive – unless used under the right circumstances in the right manner. I am unsure of whether or not this is a productive/recommendable procedure; but I would add that because 3/5 of the senate can vote to get a senator (practicing filibuster) off the floor- perhaps there’s a balance.
The filibuster, although frustrating, is ultimately a good thing, for two key reasons.
First is its role as a protective mechanism against the political majority. Although some majorities’ reign longer than others, ultimately both sides of the political aisle will serve in the majority and minority, so it is important to have tools to protect their interests and constituents when in the minority. While we are now seeing the filibuster as a political tool (for example, filibustering federal judges out of principal rather than qualification) more so than protecting against very specific pieces of legislation, one must hope this is a trend rather than the norm, and that the tool eventually reverts back to its more traditional role as partisan fever cools a bit.
Second, the filibuster does have a unique ability to call attention to an important policy when actually executed. While the threat of a filibuster has become commonplace, the talking one is still rather rare and certainly invites media and other attention when an issue has a special place for a senator. For example, both Rand Paul and Wendy Davis were able to call special attention to drones and abortion clinics, respectively, in the last few years by staging a real filibuster.
When you support the majority, the filibuster is frustrating. That won’t last forever though, so the tool needs to remain in place. Instead, the goal should be to reduce the partisanship that leads to the overuse in the first place.
I consider it to be disruptive and lacking in consideration for others’ time and productivity of the business at hand. This type of action can be self-serving as can be used for future political aspirations. If I were part of any type of deliberative body, I would not like the feeling that I was being held hostage by someone’s ranting, for example, Ted Cruz’s 2013 filibuster. There are rules to this type of deliberation and they should be adhered to. Allowing someone to speak for 3 hours is tedious for the listener and not much can be accomplished with information overload. In my opinion it comes across as a sophisticated form of bullying.
If the speaker feels that there are salient points that are germane to the discussion and are important to furthering the discussion or effect change, then permission should be granted prior to prolonging discussion on the matter. Along with this permission should be a stipulation of a time span of no more than 1 hour maximum. Anyone who feels that they need additional time should be given an opportunity to be heard, but within reason. No one should, however, be able to “hijack” the floor and refuse to yield. While this may be heavy handed, I feel that someone should be escorted from the floor if they are refusing to yield and is preventing the order of business to continue.
I feel the filibuster should remain, yes some will argue that its a waste of time and I agree it is, if they are not using it as a way to meaningfully explain their opposition. However Senators risk tarnishing their image if the public becomes aware that they are using the filibuster inappropriately. The Senator is a representative of their constituents, if they strongly feel that their constituency and or members of the public would be meaningfully hurt by impending legislation they should be allowed to make their case. The media has a greater ability to bring public awareness to improper use. We cannot simply rush through legislation, some argue that government is too slow, however the affect of a law passed can have immense implications for the nation. If abuse becomes constant the senate as a majority will realize this and implement changes accordingly as was seen with the Presidential nominations of federal judges.
Senators have used the strategy of filibuster for many decades to block any unwanted legislation. This filibuster has been used by minority leaders in order to pass any bill from the majority leaders. Using filibuster method, minority leaders can speak as long as the person wanted. Moreover, they do not have stay on the topic that majority party leaders are discussing. To end filibuster, majority leaders use cloture vote where 3/5 or 60 of them have to vote to end the speech.
I think filibuster is a good strategy because it helps minority leaders to spread their motions regarding the legislature. Through filibuster, checks and balance try to reduce power of one party. However, many senators are abusing the power of filibuster in current session. Surprisingly this session have the most gridlock where very few legislatures have passed. In this situation, I think congress should set up a rule on how long this filibuster can be. This way, they can at least able to run the government efficiently and reduce burden of the people. Secondly, I think if congress were not able to limit the time of filibuster, then the senate should require senators to speak on that topic the legislature are discussing on the floor. This way, filibusters will help other senators to be more informative in this issue. Also, citizens will be aware that senators are not wasting their time to read unnecessary material like “Green Eggs and Ham”. Lastly, I think they should reduce the vote amount of cloture because it is very hard to get 60 votes in the senate. To improve the situation, congress can amend to have 2/5 vote for the senate body to end long filibuster.
Consequently, filibusters are great power for senators. However, citizens should pay attention on how senators are using the power in order to make government highly efficient.
Due to the implications of the filibuster on Senate votes, the tactic has become a powerful method of controlling the vote and putting the voice of the minority on the floor. The filibuster has grown beyond its initial intent. It is an inefficient means of achieving cloture, as it frequently has little to do with the question at hand, and has become a show and exercise in length, effectively holding off a vote. There is no deliberation and no incentive to reach a consensus when the filibuster is employed. In an extremely ineffective Congress, there needs to be an effort made to improve productivity. This includes going beyond the change in number needed to end a filibuster, and changing or adopting methods which force the legislature to focus on the objective at hand.
Filibusters can be a good tool in protecting the minority from the majority. Although it seems that at times this tool may be frustrating, it can be an effective method to bring support for the minority. Of course, filibusters seem to be irrelevant since many times senators will speak about topics that are not related to the discussion at hand (such as reading “Green eggs and Ham ” ). Even more frustrating are the procedures associate with filibusters that eventually delay more time such as roll call voting , quorums and quorum calls. Perhaps, there should be more regulation of filibusters so that Senators should have to speak on the topic of debate rather than talking about other irrelevant matters to take up time.
Total elimination of filibusters would be detrimental to the minority. Filibusters allows for fairness in the deliberative process so that the minority may be heard. It allows the minority to bring attention to details which were not discussed previously. Suppose the Senate were to impose an action such a reforming health care or privatizing social security, which the majority agreed with but the minority did not. The use of a filibuster would be quite helpful in preventing a vote and allowing the minority to express their perspective.
The filibuster can prevent a good decision and a bad decision to be made but in all cases the minority should be heard to allow fairness.
I agree that a filibuster can be both good and bad. I think that its intent to protect the voices and opinions of the political minorities is positive. I am not sure that their rights end up always being protected because in the “Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate” article the author states that majority leaders will move other issues to be voted on to avoid filibusters. If this is the case, instead of letting filibusters do what they were intended to do, the majority is just avoiding the issues all together for as long as possible. However, it was also discussed in the article that the mere threat of a filibuster could be used as a bargaining tool to affect the agenda or secure changes to the proposed bill. This definitely works in favor of the minority if their intended goal is to pass the bill but make changes.
If implemented effectively, I think a filibuster can be a positive and necessary procedure in Senate. After researching this topic, I see that this can be a daunting process for all parties (a major reason I think Senators will do what they can to avoid it). I would suggest shortening the time it takes for the cloture procedure. The article stated that sometimes this process could take two weeks. Personally, I think that is far too long to delay the proceedings and a lot of this is wasted time because Senators are not forced to speak about the topic. The Senators should be forced to discuss their opposition to the current topic and how they would make improvements during the filibuster. This would ensure that the minority has the option of using a filibuster but it would waste less time and may increase its popularity.
The creation of the filibuster is ultimately a good thing because it allows minorities of political parties a chance to speak and voice their concerns. The fact that it was amended to a 3/5 cloture vote is a positive change, now people are prohibited from rambling if they obtain the required amount of votes to shut down the filibuster. However the current filibuster system in place is being used as a political tactic to stop action against bills in Congress but should not be removed all together. Minorities are protected but majorities suffer because they are the opposing side they are unable to pass bills and get things done with this opposition. This is a great thing when the bill in motion harms the welfare of the public good but when the bill actually helps everyday Americans; Minorities become the crippling hand to the majority. Minorities voices and opinion should be heard and protected but not at the cost of corrupt deliberation practices. Nothing is perfect any good thing comes with its flaws the filibuster is no exception to that rule. Today’s current use of the filibuster is not what the founding fathers had in mind. If we get rid of the filibuster something else would have to be created in its place to protect minority rights and that new system would not be absent from imperfections as well so what is to stop a similar situation from occurring. Allowing senators the freedom to speak as long as they want on a specific topic up for debate is more than appropriate in proper deliberation; however we should keep the conversation germane to the topics at hand. Reading “Green Eggs and Ham” is unnecessary and irrelevant those kinds of remarks simply to pass time should not be allowed in the current filibuster process. Limit discussion to important comments.
In recent years, especially during the Obama administration, legislative battles over healthcare reform, the federal budget, and other important issues have given rise to extensive demands for the elimination or reform of the filibuster in the US Senate The filibuster, meant to be used in very special circumstances, was broken because it was constantly use. Its excessive usage is a result of party polarization. Instead of a measure of fairness, it has become an instrument for obstruction.
Filibustering, as intended, is a good tactic that can allow for careful consideration of legislation passed into law. This technique allows minority voices in Senate to be relevant and heard. However, it is no longer a tool of the minority against majority oppression, as was intended by Founding Fathers, but it is an obstructions used as a method to stifle deliberation instead of promote it. If a Senator can stand at the podium and recite Green Eggs and Ham, that is clearly not enhancing deliberative process.
I would recommend changes to the filibustering procedures that would limit the subject of the conversation to the bill and legislation in question and limit the time.
The filibuster is somewhat of an anachronism in the U.S. government today, as it was put into action at a time when the United States had a smaller population and its populace–or more appropriately, the official representatives of the populace–was severely less partisan. I agree with many of the sentiments in this forum that define the filibuster as an ultimately good thing. One of its defining functions is to give power to minorities at the federal level, an element that is criminal to argue against in a liberal democracy. That being said, I do not have qualms with the filibuster in terms of allocating power to minorities and adding an suitable ‘check’ , my issue is how a minority, which these days is essentially one of two parties, misuses it to create a sluggish and unproductive deliberative environment.
Senators have a fear of filibusters because it prolongs deliberation along party lines. Furthermore, filibusters can threaten the integrity of a bill or law at hand. A true minority who is unsatisfied with a modification of law is fair in a deliberative sense, but when a party stalls action and refuses to compromise, that is an issue. A way to remedy this perhaps could be removing the two-track system. Forcing senators to hash out details and compromise rather than sideline a legislative matter might strengthen the power of government and weaken the politics of pettiness.
Idealistically one of the greatest advantages of a filibuster is that it encourages the need for a debate. A filibuster allows for the minority to state their opinions, an imposition of the majority to do nothing but listen to what they have to say. Although, the procedure is often abused – especially in recent years – the filibuster has proven to be effective in creating way for topics to be debated. However, filibusters can be bad because it is a waste of time. For example, if a Senator does not like the bill, he /she can hamper the procedures of a bill for their own interest through the use of a filibuster, speaking about this that are unnecessary, as in the case with U.S Senator Alfonse D’Amato who read the phone book. They are only postponing the inevitable from happening because the bill will eventually passed if it is in the interest of the majority vote. So the filibuster will have proven to be a waste of time.
Yes, the filibuster allows for a minority to have a voice. But that should come at a cost as well, simply saying I filibuster without having to stand at a podium to prevent a vote means that there is little skin in the game. As I recall (and I do not know if this is true today) there was a period of time in recent years where you did not have to stand for hours and talk, refusing to yield the floor. If you simply want to block legislation you don’t like, hampering the democratic process, and you do not have to put any skin in the game that strikes me as a problem. A Senator should have to stand there for hours, not be able to go to the bathroom, have to stand the entire time. It’s a sign of conviction. If you don’t have that conviction then maybe you do not really hate the bill on the floor and should just vote no.
Whether the filibuster is a good or bad thing is tough to say. Although the critics are correct in pointing out that this procedure is not a part of the Constitution and violates the majority rules principle of democracy, it is unclear how detrimental this is to functioning of a democracy like the United States. Filibusters are not a final means of ending a piece of legislation. They can be stopped with sixty votes, which is only nine votes more than is necessary to pass a resolution. Yes, these nine votes area significant in a legislative era defined by a divisive partisanship but that has not always been the case in the Senate. Coastal liberal democrats may have found the filibuster a nuisance in the Obama era Senate, what with those pesky Republicans blocking Democrat proposed legislation, but who’s to say that those same Democrats may end up needing the filibuster during President Cruz’s eight years in office. The point is, it can be a useful check against majority rule. If this sounds anti-democratic, well it is; but, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The Senate itself is not a democratic governing body. State representation is even across all fifty states, which gives Wyoming as much say as New York or California. By design, it’s a conservative body. Only in the event of radical and long term switches of public opinion will it change to match the mood of the populous, which can be temperamental and reactionary in nature (take the parliamentary systems present in European democracies – one bad terrorist attack in Paris and all of a sudden Marine Le Pen is France’s presumptive next Prime Minister. This may be more democratic in the short term but the will of the mob is often insatiable). In any case, until a truly worthwhile piece of legislation is struck down, I see no need to lament the existence of the filibuster, which has been around almost as long as the Senate itself at this point. As it can be a useful tool in preventing the tyranny of the majority, I move to declare it a “good thing.”