Filibuster Busters
Democratic senators unhappy with ten of President Bush's nominees for federal judgeships have threatened to "filibuster" the nominations---that is, to speak endlessly to prevent a vote on them. Republicans, in response, have threatened to abolish filibusters. Are filibusters worth saving?
Talking Heads Rule
The word "filibuster" comes from Dutch, and originally meant "pirate." It has been used to describe seizing the floor of the US Senate and monopolizing it to prevent a vote since at least the early Twentieth Century. Wisconsin Senator Robert M LaFollette (R) spoke for over 18 hours in 1908; the record for a single senator set by Senator Strom Thurmond (D, SC)(1) in 1957 (24 hours, 18 minutes) still stands. In 1964 a group of southern senators filibustered for 75 days against a proposed civil rights bill. The bill passed.
The Constitution allows each chamber of Congress to set its own rules. The House of Representatives, always far larger than the Senate, limits debate on each issue. The Senate originally allowed unlimited debate, but now a vote of 60 senators can limit debate to one hour per senator (2).
Under the Constitution, ratification of treaties by the Senate requires a two-thirds vote ( a "super-majority"), but approval of presidential nominations and legislation requires no more than a simple majority vote. The effect of the filibuster is to require a 60-vote super-majority to pass anything, a departure from both the Constitution and the concept of majority rule . With this tactic, any 41 senators can stop a bill or nomination they oppose. Since the Senate has two senators from every state, regardless of population, these 41 senators may represent far less than 41% of the American people. Thus a bill or nomination supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people can be defeated by a filibuster. The minority should have rights in a democracy, but these should not include the right to over-rule the majority.
Can filibusters play a useful role?
Yes, because a senator can use his right to unlimited debate to call attention to a harmful provision in a long bill than everyone else overlooked. The filibuster can give opponents of the bill time to rally public opposition and influence other senators.
Also, some nominations, particularly to the Supreme Court, should require some type of super-majority. Before a person becomes one of only nine justices who will make decisions affecting this country for decades to come, that person should have overwhelming support, not merely 51% support. The confirmation process should be affected by both the number of opponents and the depth of their convictions.
Democratic senators should use the filibuster rarely, and only when absolutely necessary. The more often it is used to thwart the will of the majority, the stronger will be the case for its abolition. The Republican senators must remember that, if history is any guide, they will not always be the majority in the Senate, and the Senate will not always be considering nominees of a Republican president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964.
(2) Closing debate on a change in Senate rules requires a two-thirds vote.
Talking Heads Rule
The word "filibuster" comes from Dutch, and originally meant "pirate." It has been used to describe seizing the floor of the US Senate and monopolizing it to prevent a vote since at least the early Twentieth Century. Wisconsin Senator Robert M LaFollette (R) spoke for over 18 hours in 1908; the record for a single senator set by Senator Strom Thurmond (D, SC)(1) in 1957 (24 hours, 18 minutes) still stands. In 1964 a group of southern senators filibustered for 75 days against a proposed civil rights bill. The bill passed.
The Constitution allows each chamber of Congress to set its own rules. The House of Representatives, always far larger than the Senate, limits debate on each issue. The Senate originally allowed unlimited debate, but now a vote of 60 senators can limit debate to one hour per senator (2).
Under the Constitution, ratification of treaties by the Senate requires a two-thirds vote ( a "super-majority"), but approval of presidential nominations and legislation requires no more than a simple majority vote. The effect of the filibuster is to require a 60-vote super-majority to pass anything, a departure from both the Constitution and the concept of majority rule . With this tactic, any 41 senators can stop a bill or nomination they oppose. Since the Senate has two senators from every state, regardless of population, these 41 senators may represent far less than 41% of the American people. Thus a bill or nomination supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people can be defeated by a filibuster. The minority should have rights in a democracy, but these should not include the right to over-rule the majority.
Can filibusters play a useful role?
Yes, because a senator can use his right to unlimited debate to call attention to a harmful provision in a long bill than everyone else overlooked. The filibuster can give opponents of the bill time to rally public opposition and influence other senators.
Also, some nominations, particularly to the Supreme Court, should require some type of super-majority. Before a person becomes one of only nine justices who will make decisions affecting this country for decades to come, that person should have overwhelming support, not merely 51% support. The confirmation process should be affected by both the number of opponents and the depth of their convictions.
Democratic senators should use the filibuster rarely, and only when absolutely necessary. The more often it is used to thwart the will of the majority, the stronger will be the case for its abolition. The Republican senators must remember that, if history is any guide, they will not always be the majority in the Senate, and the Senate will not always be considering nominees of a Republican president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964.
(2) Closing debate on a change in Senate rules requires a two-thirds vote.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home