How the Filibuster Changed and Brought Tyranny of the Minority

Reader Comments
Back to article

I completely disagree with Mr. Robert Schlesinger. The filibuster protects the minority. But, in the present case, it actually protected the majority because more citizens object to the current health care legislation than are for it. If it were not for the filibuster we would have already had this health care monstrosity forced down our throats.
The filibuster forces a consensus among congressmen which is entirely lacking in what is happening in Washington. It stops parties from imposing bad, partisan law on the whole country. To call the filibuster "the tyranny of the minority" when the present congress was moving forward against the will of the people is misleading and deceitful. Thank Goodness Mr. Brown won and the real tyranny was stopped.
It seems the media elite, the Democrats and the President were bent on ignoring the people. No matter we did they just said it was a few kooks. Well, after Mr. Brown's election, they have started to listen a little, but only a little. By the way, Republicans are hard of hearing also.

Fredrick Stone of NC 8:56AM February 01, 2010

Fight for Democracy, Fight against the Filibuster
I believe the overuse of the filibuster is threatening our democracy. I believe ordinary citizens should sue to have the filibuster declared unconstitutional. I think the case for unconstitutionality could and should be made. Below I lay out why I think this is so.
Senators of either party are not motivated to seriously challenge the filibuster and other minority delaying tactics. Otherwise the opportunity afforded at the beginning of each Senate session of using the “Nuclear Option” to set aside the filibuster, and other minority prerogatives, would have been exercised years ago. This is because most senators don’t want to lose power if they should find themselves in the minority.
Our Constitution, as demonstrated by the tie breaking function of our vice president, intends for most senate bills to be debated and pass with half of the vote plus one. The occasions when our founders thought that a super majority should be required are specified. These include, override of a presidential veto, approval of treaties, amendment of our constitution and articles of impeachment. The drafters of our constitution did not anticipate senate partisans using filibuster threats to stop other business. This was true of Democrats blocking Bush’s appointments. This is true of Republican strategies of delay.
But is there not a tradition said to date to Washington and Jefferson about our Senate functioning as a “Cooling saucer” to avoid congress rushing to pass laws? Yes, this is true. But from our constitution, we can reconstruct how our founders’ originally intended to do this. To cool the brashness of youth, candidates for our Senate must be five years older than those who stand for election to the House. Senators serve for six years, Representatives for two. All Representatives face re-election each election cycle. Senators’ terms are staggered so that only one third face reelection each two years.
Thus, the “Cooling saucer” function of our Senate is built into the way our constitution details its relationship with our House of Representatives.
Besides the main function of our senate was to motivate small states to ratify our constitution. The equality of state representation in the senate counters the power of larger states’ votes represented by population of the house. Our “Great (Constitutional) compromise of two houses of Congress also motivated new states to grow our union. Yet by specified design (Note above) the senate also functions as a “Cooling saucer”
Our constitution does however allow the Senate to set its own rules. But for reasons I’ve laid out above, Senators are more motivated to preserving their personal and party’s power than making sure they have a democratic set of rules. But ordinary citizens can act through nonpartisan litigation to seek to modify or change the filibuster and other senate rules so that the will of the people is not thwarted.

Edgar Welty of CA 6:03PM January 30, 2010

I agree that its hypocritical for the Democrats to hate the filibuster when they were crying foul a few years ago when Bush tried to get rid of it. However, I think that some parts of the American system have gotten out of control and no longer compare with systems of government around the world. The Senate Filibuster and Life time supreme court appointments being the two most pernicious rules that have invaded our government like no other.
Elections should have consequences. The majority party should be held responsible for what happens during its term in office. These days neither party shares any blame for the failure of legislation or government. There is always somebody else to blame, usually the 41st senator of the minority party. We can't pass health care legislation because of the filibuster say the Democrats. We can't cut the size of government or pass tort reform say the Republicans. Blame the process don't blame us. While the entire time the American public gets more and more disenchanted with the system. No wonder then that voting rolls keep shrinking even as the population rises. Get rid of it and lets hold both Democrats and Republicans responsible.
Life time Supreme court judicial appointments are more problematic because the Constitution actually prevents Congress from passing legislation to limit the appointment. (Article III, Section I) This will take an amendment to change but we should change it because it gives the Court more power than was intended by the Framers. Conservative and Liberal justices have simply become too activist and we need constant turn over for the public to have an actual say every decade or so on how they think the Justices are doing. The best way to do this is to let the remaining Justices serve out their life terms but at retirement every new Justice should be allowed only 12 years on the bench and they should be at least 55 years old to be eligible. The can be reappointed by the President as many times as he chooses. This way we can ensure that justices don't stay on decades after they are appointed without having to worry about judicial prejudice affecting decisions.
Elections should matter. If the public feels that they have a direct say in the affairs of the state then they will go out and vote. Participate in their democracy and elect representatives that are accountable to them.

Amit Uttam of OH 4:55PM January 29, 2010

The filibuster is quite effective at making politicians do something they to seem to have forgotten: talk to each other and compromise to get things done. There are very few issues where one side is completely right and the other completely wrong. When they work together and compromise we get a better result then we do with one party jamming something down our throats. And if they can't agree and get nothing done - so be it. No law is better than bad law.

Brad of TX 8:31PM January 27, 2010

Didn't you complain back in 2005 that the Republicans were trying to "ban" your precious, precious filibuster?
Why...yes you did.
Good journalists at least try not to be so blantantly partisan.

Rich Horton of WI 9:29PM January 25, 2010

The old filibuster ruels were appropriate when there was more restraint in discourse. Now that coarser people have taken over, they may not be appropriate. It even extends to cmments posted here - rahther than disucss the issue, tehy resort to personal attacks on the author of this article ("you do not matter' sounds like my 5-year old daughter) or excuses to discuss the topic _I_ want to talk about (like healthcare legislation)
Until we can have more mature people in our political offices, the filibuster is only an impediment that the people who filibustered against civil rights will use again to prolong our warrior society.

Henry of CA 7:04PM January 25, 2010

and nobody takes your liberal drivel seriously. You really do not matter.

gale of ME 6:06PM January 25, 2010

The filibuster is getting used more because we have a growing ideological gap...it has transformed into a check on a runaway party....we don't need bills unless they are for 60 percent of the people, not 51%.
As an independent, I think it is wonderful we can't get caught up in a temporary ideological wave of the moment because it is very, very difficult to undo bad legislation once passed.

Hoodoo of TX 5:02PM January 25, 2010

During the last administration, the Democrats filibustered confirmation of 10 of George Bush's judicial nominees (and threatened 6 more.) No other Senate had ever done such a thing. Where was the outrage about the system failing when 10 appellate court seats went unfilled as a result of purely partisan politics?
I understand you have made some allusion to some of those actions, but the impetus for this opinion post is clearly current events.
If the voters truly wanted Obama Care, the political fall out of filibustering it would be dealt with by them in the voting booth. Then you'd have your filibuster proof majority. The filibuster serves to protect the public from being railroaded into bad law. It give us the time to think and decide "do we really want this or not?" We've done that and the result is reflected in the tide of public opinion and the Mass. voters turning out to upset Teddy's seat.

B Ritchie of PA 4:42PM January 25, 2010

the filibuster was designed to allow proper debate of an issue not to prevent legislation from being passed all together. If you asked Jefferson or Madison if they thought that you should need 60% of the votes in senate to get anything passed they would say 'No that is not democracy, that is not part of the constitution.' If you really believe that a bill is so bad that it should not even be voted on much less passed then you should have to man the filibuster 24/7. If the bill is that bad then nothing else should get done until your opponents comes to their collective senses and either kill the bill or pass it. That is democracy.

robert of VA 4:08PM January 25, 2010