Why the Filibuster is a Problem

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The way I see it, the party using the filibuster should actually be required to blabber away with cots in the offices and floor votes every 1/2 hour at 4 in the morning like the real filibusters of old.
These filibusters we have now are way too easy. Filibusters would be rare if they had to actually involve follow-through.

Dan of MD 12:09PM January 27, 2010

...just the threat of same. I challenge your assertion that the 07-08 Congress had 70% of its legislation filibustered.
I'll go along the threat of filibuster.
Can anyone produce evidence of any filibuster since the 1960s?

Brad Morrison of TX 8:14AM January 27, 2010

If one accepts the premise that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic left have succeeded in guaranteeing themselves perpetual majorities in the Senate etc., then the left's attempts to eliminate the filibuster, and otherwise make it easier to ram through relatively unpolular, purely partisan rules changes and bills, then it makes sense for the left to push this. The Republicans, having, not so long ago, created the delusion of their own assured control, played with such "nuclear option," too. It would have been a disaster for them if they had pulled it off, and it could become one for the Democrats in time, too.
There is, of course, a difference between an actual filibuster and the realization that you don't have enough votes to ram your bill or nominee through over objection.
A lot of people who voted for Obama and Democratic Senators--or against McCain and Republicans--may have wanted a health care bill but not the particularly smelly sausage-making payoff process we've seen, much less what we haven't, or the kind of sour sausage that the published House and Senate pork grindings have revealed to date, much less what we might well get out of the secret "reconciliation" process without our Republican Senators or the people having any access to the process.
I'm retired, live in a small town and county, and am on Medicare and Medicaid, and the versions of these bills, and positions and proposals by those likely to be appointed, without Senate confirmation, to make the real decisions on coverage, cuts, etc., that have come out, even in leading liberal, pro-Obama media, should be stopped by all lawful or non-violent means.

Peter Chamberlain of TX 6:48PM January 26, 2010

The proposal to do away with filibuster is to essentially end debate. I think we can both agree that debate is what makes Democracy greater than any other form of government.
I also agree, that filibuster is a strong tool. But it's a necessary evil. Filibuster keeps a simple majority from running roughshod in the Senate.
To be sure, it would be impossible for the Senate to act on legislation in a timely fashion if Senators always exercised their right to extended debate. Therefore, there are ways to end filibuster. One of the ways is through a Super-majority vote to invoke cloture.
The problem, though, is not the threat of filibuster as Schlesinger and other progressive libs point out. The problem is that Democrats don't have the stomach for the fight.
Dems want to point fingers at Republicans as the reason Obama'scare plan failed. But that's completely false.
True, Republicans have not supported the "Dem-only" version of the bill and why should they? Dems arrogantly adopted a go-it-alone approach and arrogantly believed that they had the clout to pass the bill themselves. Therefore, Republicans were not invited to the sausage party.
But that's where Dems went wrong. Some Dem members (Nelson/Landrieu) quickly realized the bill would go nowhere without their vote. They, in essence, held the United States hostage and squeezed out a ransom in the form of concessions and kickbacks along with all the other backroom deals Reid and Pelosi cut to get the bill where it is today.
Dems could easily push the bill to a vote and invoke cloture. They should if the honestly believe the Health Care bill is THAT spectacular for America. So why aren't they? Why are Dems suddenly turning yellow and weak?
It's not Republicans or the threat of filibuster. It's the people. They don't like the kickbacks and back room promises, the cost and long term debt, the provisions, the lack of tort reform and other Republican agenda items, or the fact that lobbiest are helping to write the bill. The people have resoundingly voiced their collective opinion.
Consequently, Democrat lawmakers are concerned about re-election, they are finally starting to listen to constituents. Many are opting to retire than fight for re-election. I'm sure the Blue Bay State election certainly caught their collective attention. In short, the Democratic process worked because of the people; the electorate mass.
But, if Dems don't like filibuster they can change the rules. The current Senate rules state that 67 votes are required for future rule changes.
Good luck getting 67 votes. I seriously doubt Dems could even get 40 votes for that proceedural change.

david of ID 4:07PM January 26, 2010

Dueling.........but with epees. No sense in spreading the blood on the marble. Hard to get off, right?
I really do think there's some merit in that idea, in that our 'elected' crew can have their own health care, vote anytime on a raise in pay. If you have enough $ to back you ...you can get to heaven in our lifetimes.
There must have been a lawmaker, sometime in our history, who was honest, intelligent, and caring. My history info is weak... can someone inform me and what of our populace reads this?

Clayton Vern Griffith of NV 9:17PM January 25, 2010

an endless debate on a bill, then there must be a way for leadership to force the actual debate to physically occur---and endlessly. Stopping legislation by the mere "threat" of filibuster without putting the obstructionists through the inconvenience and spectacle of standing there doing the endless debate is a joke on the American people. Are we dumb or what?

Muser of NM 8:59PM January 25, 2010

Like you said, Filibuster is a problem to the majority. It's one of the few tools the minority party has at it's disposal. It's part and parcel of the checks and balances idea that is part of government.
The Dems loved it when Bush was in power, but know that they are in power, they suddenly want to change the rules and they have water boys like you to peddle the idea.
If Dems don't like the filibuster, then they better start learning how to win friends and influence people.

david of ID 5:59PM January 25, 2010

If we're gonna get rid of the filibuster I think we should bring back dueling on the steps of Congress. I think it would work out better for the citizens in the long run.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 4:38PM January 25, 2010