Debate Over The Senate’s Use Of The Filibuster
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-21/debate-over-senate%E2%80%99s-use-filibuster
Just 17 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, according to a new Gallup poll. Many are surprised the rating is that high given the gridlock, dysfunction and general inability of Congress to get anything done. And many believe one of the causes is the increasing use of the filibuster. Immortalized by Jimmy Stewart in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," this legislative tactic allows a single senator to endlessly delay or kill a bill that is supported by the majority. Some believe this is an important power afforded to senators and it allows thorough debate on legislation. Others argue it impedes effective government. Please join us to talk about the debate over the filibuster.
Guests
Michael Quinn
President and CEO, American Revolution Center
Richard Arenberg
Co-author of "Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of the Senate"
Senator Jeff Merkley
Democratic Senator from Oregon
Ross Baker
Professor of political science, Rutgers University
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Getting my comment in early: How is it that Senators can get away with not actually being on the floor and debating the bill? From what I understand, they're never actually rambling from the well; they are symbolically filibustering. If you're going to impede progress, I want you to work for it and give me hours of entertaining video on C-SPAN to tweet jokes about later...
C-Span pulld back from torrid speech to reveal empty chamber: Sham government.
I have no problem with the way the filibuster used to be. A minority can slow down legislation and perhaps force modifications. But a minority slowing down legislation is a completely different proposition than a minority stopping it completely. That’s not how republican democracies are supposed to work.
But ultimately, I blame the spineless Democrats. At the beginning of each two year sitting, the Senate adopts its rules, as per Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. If the Democrats wanted a different filibuster rule or to go back to the old one, it could’ve pushed that through. I think they like having Republican obstructionism as an issue to run on.
This issue is focused on how form influences content. Do the rules that a group works under improve the product of their work? Or does it make the outcome more fair as a result of the process.
The reality of this discussion is that first most people do not understand the process generally. For example, since most of the work of legislation gets done in committee hearings and markups and by staffers and in numerous meetings, the chamber is really just the last chance for action. Having written legislation that came to the floor of the Senate, it was breathtaking what happens then. Though most of the work in terms of volume and effort is done prior to making it to the floor of the House or Senate, it is obvious to me that this is the rare and often last chance to shine a light on legislation.
cont.
cont. from above:
Although the Senate is known for oratory, the issue of Rules and how they are enforced shape the institution. The parliamentarian, leadership and individual Senators abide by the rules. This is the bulwark of a democratic republic, keeping the politics of the moment from capsizing the ship of state.
Not to filibuster this point. It is not the rule of the filibuster that is the underlying issue, but whether our republic is suffering due to the rule. Had Strom Thurmond won, had Dred Scott not been overturned despite stare decisis, our republic might not have survived. This is where politics and rules collide. Perhaps this is why many think that only major issues should be allowed to be filibustered. And some only like filibusters or oppose them depending on which side of the aisle is in the majority or minority.
I am not sure which side I am on in this debate. If the Republicans win and get their wish to end social insurance that has allowed millions to avoid misery and early death through our social security pension and Medicare system, perhaps I will be for that forty percent of Senators making a last stand against it. But I know that we must have rules that are flexible enough to do the work to continue our republic too.
Daniel Bennett
Today`s filibuster is used to destroy the effectiveness of our Federal government. You can`t order a pizza today without a T-Party filibuster.
citizencontact wrote:
Although the Senate is known for oratory....
Did you see the recent study from... I don't know who but, it studied the speaking skills of average Americans. You probably know the level of speaking skill has been on a slide, but it concluded that the congress has the speaking skill of an 8th grader. Oratory, hah!
Requiring a Senator to actually be on the floor, talking, is an absolute necessity. We would all enjoy seeing the spectacle.
Even ignoring the filibuster, the single-Senator hold is way too undemocratic even for an institution partially designed to impede democratic excess.
(And ignoring that, the sheer absurdity of even a largely undemocratic body having the same representation for Rhode Island and Texas ['Wyoming and California' for us liberals] is Dadaesque...unfortunately that, as well as the prohibition on importing more slaves after 1810 [I think it was] are the only part of the Constitution that cannot be amended-away.)
The Senate as currently constituted is anti democratic and difficult to justify based on the inequality of the States in terms of population. The current rules are clearly an overreach and a source of frustration to so many Americans. How long can we expect these conditions to prevail before the people take the situation in hand and reform the government in the form that the well regulated militia will choose?
The "grade level" of a speech has little to do with the skill of oration. If the "study" you mentioned is the one referenced in the Washington Examiner ( http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1304721 ), then your assessment is based on a simplistic and incorrect method of determining the quality or persuasive power of rhetoric. The grade level is usually based on the average number of letters in the words in the text. (for an example, see http://bluecentauri.com/tools/writer/sample.php#kincaid )
Since the writers of many of the speeches of the Senators are written by themselves and their staffs or are based on their knowledge of the issue, the grade level they pick to speak in usually is based on their skill of knowing their audience. If you are speaking or writing for a particular audience it helps to keep the grade level as low necessary for the audience to understand the material without losing the meaning. To do otherwise is either pretentious or proof of poor writing skills. (see Elements of Style by Strunk and White).
Actual quality of oration is more subjective or based on polling the audience for effectiveness.
Daniel Bennett
Article 1 of the Constitution clearly says that if the Senate is evenly divided, the vice president can cast the deciding vote. Clearly the Founders intended a question to be decided byh 50% plus one. I don't see why the Senate doesn't have to follow the Constitution.
From my perspective Congress as a whole approves way too much, the founders obviously wanted to make new legislation hard to enact. I'm for anything that stifles more unnecessary laws and regulations. Compromise is the mantra of the foolish and short sighted, obstructionism is the only way to fight it.
Here's a link that covers the trends of cloture and the filibuster:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-history-of-the-f...
First of all the constitution is anything, but clear on what the internal rules must be, except that they be determined by each body for themselves. Cite Section Five of Article One: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, ...."
I would ask ourselves, is our position on this issue dependent on what the result of a particular vote would be. Or perhaps, results oriented people who are impatient with rules that slow or impede decisions are bad to begin with. The rule of law often allows reason to trump raw power.
The process of running a deliberative body is painful and seems often to be indifferent to common sense. And the results are not uniformly better than a less constrained system might generate, but at least we can have a moment to observe the process and feel that a fair outcome is more likely.
Which is not to say that a filibuster could not be judged unconstitutional (though I wonder how separation of powers would survive such a determination). Or if the Senate could not come up with better rules.
Daniel Bennett
I wonder which laws/regulations are too much for AD? The ones that provide for limited liability for corporations, copyright, patents, trademarks, land and mineral rights of owners, protection of property, the bankruptcy protections for corporations, the disclosure requirements of corporations to their owners/shareholders. It is easy to forget that government is the main democratically controlled institution in our society. And supposed anti-regulatory folks often profit from the regulations that protect profit and mainly protest those that protect life.
Compromise is not a mantra of anyone and has never been foolish even when the results were poor. Compromise is a result of reaching any resolution between parties, despite the term now also serving to describe the process of reaching the compromise/agreement. All business contracts are by definition compromises ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=compromise ). It is merely when the parties reach any agreement, an agreement to abide by the results of words spoken or written.
The opposite of actual compromise is anarchy, disorder or war-where no party will capitulate to the other. I think that anti-social outcomes are the worst. Our constitution was an agreement, in other words a compromise. Some elements of that compromise were painful to those not truly a party to the agreement, especially the enslaved persons. Which is a reason for democratic and representative methods, to allow more parties to be true parties to an agreement and feel bound by it.
Daniel Bennett
Filibuster, as it is used today, reminds me of a "Liberum veto" rule in 18-century Poland. It means "I do not agree" - where single member of the parliament was able to halt any decision making. There was no chance of introducing any kind of neccessary reforms.
This single rule is blamed for paralyzing and weakening Poland to the point that its three neighbors (Russia, Prussia, Austria) were able to divide it and wipe off the map of Europe for 123 years.
cc wrote:
"Compromise is not a mantra of anyone and has never been foolish even when the results were poor. "
Agree. To me, compromise is reflected in new law passing with overwhelming majorities - in other words law that both sides can support.
Which made the process resulting in ACA such a disappointment - especially considering the breadth of the law. When you have to resort to parliamentary tricks and locked doors to get legislation passed, chances are there's not much compromise in it. Had any kind of compromise been offered to achieve say a 75 or 80% majority in both chambers, would we even be awaiting a decision from SCOTUS on the matter?
I doubt it.
Although the ACA was written under very open rules, but like much legislation the conference was not as open. And all of the "tricks" were within the rules of each house and oft used by both parties. And just because the Republicans decided not to participate in forging the legislation was not due to either to willingness of the Democrats to talk or to accept many ideas from the Republicans.
But the real shame is that the legislation is under attack despite that it is already saving the lives of thousands of our children and seniors. And it will save millions of lives unless overturned. Our government has the mandate to provide for the common defense, and this health care legislation is the among the most significant actions to protect and defend Americans yet written.
Daniel Bennett
ecgberht wrote:
cc wrote:
"Compromise is not a mantra of anyone and has never been foolish even when the results were poor. "
Agree. To me, compromise is reflected in new law passing with overwhelming majorities - in other words law that both sides can support."
This was a response to a hit and run post on my part today that needs some fleshing out.
Where we stand as a country today in my opinion does not require compromise, it requires a down sizing of government. One side insists on absolute ever increasing government and for the most part the other side capitulates. A small but growing contingent believes whats right is right, you either agree with it or get out of the way. Emotionalism and unsustainable spending levels are irrelevant to rational debate, I'm in this group.