Is It Time to Change the Senate Filibuster Rules?

Reader Comments
Back to article

The filibuster serves a vital purpose in our system by forcing the majority party to work with the minority in order to get things done. However, the current system allows the minority to, in effect, freeze the Senate without actually going through what most people think of as a filibuster, which is what they saw in "Mr Smith Goes to Washington."
Instead of a courageous loner up against the powers that be, we now have a "courtesy filibuster" which allows the vote to be delayed until such time as the majority can muster 60 votes. No one has to take and hold the Senate floor to make their point. It is just as much a parlimentary procedure as the reconciliation process the Republicans are crying about now.
I say if you are going to filibuster, have a real one: take the floor and hold it; focus the country's attention on your issue, and stop all business of the Senate until it has dealt with you. If your arguement is persuasive, public sentiment will swing to you, and Senate votes will follow. If, however, the country sees that you are, in fact, holding progress hostage to your party's own political agenda, then support will fall away, and you will soon retire from the field and the vote will proceed. After all, wasn't a straight up and down vote the standard every true Republican was looking for, just a few years ago?

russell m of TX 12:08AM February 28, 2010

Gridlock is good. It indicates a significant number of Americans, though in the minority, are concerned about the direction and actions of the majority party to fight hard to stall those actions until we all get a grip and don't go rushing madly (and badly) into uncharted waters. A lot of this grousing about the filibuster and gridlock would end if Americans remembered our system of government was designed to allow just that, on certain occasions. If the House and Senate change hands to a Republican majority anytime in the near future the Democrats will value, use, and defend what they now despise and want to end. As they did the last time there was a Republican controlled Congress.

Jack Gregory of SC 9:56AM February 27, 2010

I see nothing wrong with requiring 60 Senate votes to pass bill that revamps 16 % of our national economy. Requiring 60 votes essentially mandates that compromises are made and that both parties have input into such a significant bill.
Remember that if the current bill in the Democrat controlled Senate could pass with 51 votes, it would only take 51 votes from a Republican controlled Senate to undo the bill. That is not a good thing.
To my Democrat friends who claim the Republicans are the party of no, remember how the Democrats acted when Bush tried to revamp Social Security. I bet you thought requiring 60 votes was a good thing then. You can't have it both ways.

Bob of TX 2:57PM February 25, 2010