One major difference between the way the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives conducts their business is the existence of the Senate filibuster. In short, there is unlimited debate in the Senate, providing a minority of senators the opportunity to forestall the passage of legislation they oppose. The filibuster became a tool that opponents of the civil rights legislation in the 1960's used to slow down legislation that would have expanded voting rights, particularly in the South. In fact, Strom Thurmond unsuccessfully fought such a law when he filibustered for 24 hours. In more recent years, the filibuster has been used not only to grind the legislative process to a crawl but, to also prevent a president's nominees for judgeships and executive department positions to be confirmed. Democrats in the early part of this decade filibustered several of President Bush's choices for federal judgeships. With the Democrats regaining control of the Senate, Republicans have returned the favor in record numbers of filibusters against President Obama and his choices for judgeships and other administrative positions.
A cloture motion is need to end a filibuster. Cloture is successful when 60 senators vote to end debate. With the use of the filibuster on the rise, it has raised, the minds of some, concerns that the Senate has become inefficient and unable to conduct business in a timely fashion. The idea that the legislative process operates upon the principle of majority rule has been been replaced by the notion that nothing gets done in the Senate without a supermajority of 60 votes. With Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, effectively giving the GOP a veto over any Democratic legislative proposals even if they have substantial support. And, if and when, the tables are turned, the Democrats are likely to return the favor. As a result, there have been calls for reforming the filibuster, with some even suggesting it be eliminated. Should it be eliminated? Or is there some reform that can retain it as a useful tool without derailing the legislative process?
(Here are some links that you may find useful):
Debatepedia
Tom Harkin Interview
History of the Filibuster
Newsweek Article
Cloture Motions in the 111th Congress
I am in favor of keeping the filabuster just as it is. I see no reason to change what has always been. There should be a way to be able to get information out regardless of the party when one feels it necessary.I find it unique that this has become a question now, during this administration. We continue to see changes and things get blocked or stopped (or at least a shot at stopping things) when it is not in favor of the current adinistartion.
ReplyDeleteActually, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is opposed to banning the filibuster. The filibuster tends to be the bane of existence for whichever party controls the Senate. When the GOP controlled the Senate they explored ways of ending it or, at least, changing the rules.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7384708/
I think that they should reform the filibuster. Why try to stop something that was written in the constitution and has been used for hundreds of years? Why now? I am a left handed person, and i don't even think that much to the left....
ReplyDeleteActually, the filibuster isn't in the Constitution. It is a Senate rule.
ReplyDeleteI think it should stay the same. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Congress is complicated enough without changing things that they are used to using.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the filibuster should be eliminated, this has proven to be a legitimate way of not letting either party pass anything into legislation without all parties in agreement or at least a compromise. This gives each party a chance to be heard. Perhaps a reformation is in order, although I do not know the full logistics of the matter.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the filibuster should stay the way it is. I am so tired of politicians wanted to change things in order to fit what they want or make their jobs easier. I feel the only reason they want to end the filibuster is because republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, and if the tides were turned and the democrates had the 41 votes, republicans would be doing the same thing. Politicans only complain about things when they are not in favor of that party. Leave the filibuster alone, the government is go big now as it is?
ReplyDeleteI do not think we should change or eliminate the filibuster. It has been in place so a politican can be heard when he has the opportunity. This has been proven as a great method to give each politican a chance to convince everybody to lean in their favor, or at least be heard before a vote.
ReplyDeleteI think the filibuster should remain the way it is in order to allow for a senator to voice an opinion. Also it allows for the minority party to still stop legislation that would otherwise be passed.
ReplyDelete