Or maybe they always have?
No, seriously, there’s no newspaper I respect more than the New York Times. But I saw the darnedest thing on the Web site this morning about the filibuster.
Filibusters: The Senate’s self-inflicted wound
By Jean Edward Smith
New York Times
Barack Obama — unlike the other five presidents my colleagues and I are discussing on this blog — must contend with a worrisome new feature in American politics: the trivialization of the filibuster in the Senate. A simple majority vote no longer suffices to pass major pieces of legislation. Instead, in almost every case, the Senate must muster at least 60 votes (a “supermajority”) to close off debate. And because of a rule the Senate adopted relating to deficit spending, it took another 60 votes to pass the stimulus package last month.
… In 1917, with two-thirds of the Senate having been elected by popular vote, the first dilution of the absolute authority of the filibuster was achieved. The Senate adopted Rule 22 to permit cloture to be imposed (limiting debate) if two-thirds of the Senate agreed. The Times wrote, “It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the new rule, both in measures of immediate interest and on the general course of legislation.”
But invoking cloture proved difficult. Between 1919 and 1960, 23 attempts to close off debate were mounted, and only four were successful. In 1975, Rule 22 was amended to allow 60 senators, three-fifths of the Senate, to close off debate. The results have been better, but not markedly so. In the 108th Congress (2003-2004), cloture was attempted 49 times and was successful only12. What is more disheartening is the growing frequency with which the filibuster has been resorted to. In the most recent Congress, 112 filibusters were mounted, and 51 were successful.
… the use of the filibuster as an everyday tool of legislation stands the idea of democratic government on its head. Instead of majority rule in the Senate, the tyranny of the minority prevails. If the ability of the British House of Lords to prevent passage of legislation has been curtailed, surely it is time to permit a simple majority of the United States Senate to close off debate.
In the great legislative reapportionment cases of the 1960s, the Supreme Court defined democratic government as majority rule based on the principle of one person, one vote. It is time to apply that standard to the Senate.
Woah, wait a minute. We’re killing the filibuster?
Make my filibuster
David E. RePass
For the New York Times
President Obama has decided to spend his political capital now, pushing through an ambitious agenda of health care, education and energy reform. If the Democrats in the Senate want to help him accomplish his goals, they should work to eliminate one of the greatest threats facing effective governance — the phantom filibuster.
Most Americans think of the filibuster (if they think of it at all) through the lens of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” — a minority in the Senate deeply disagrees with a measure, takes to the floor and argues passionately round the clock to prevent it from passing. These filibusters are relatively rare because they take so much time and effort.
… The phantom filibuster is clearly unconstitutional. The founders required a supermajority in only five situations: veto overrides and votes on treaties, constitutional amendments, convictions of impeached officials and expulsions of members of the House or Senate. The Constitution certainly does not call for a supermajority before debate on any controversial measure can begin.
Maybe most Americans only think of the filibuster in light of the Frank Capra film, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, but thankfully, I have a better memory than that. The filibuster was a major issue in 2005 when Republicans, with strengthened majorities and supposed capital from the re-election of George W. Bush, bade Democrats to relent in their filibuster opposition to some of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees. Then-Senate Majority leader Bill Frist wielded the supposed “nuclear option,” which would eliminate the filibuster and return the chamber to majority rule — at least in most cases. Democrats protested loudly to such an act, saying that it removed an important check on power in Washington. The New York Times, of course, came to the Democrat’s aid:
Mr. Smith goes under the gavel
New York Times editorial
Published Nov. 28, 2004
Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. But the greater their power, the more they have focused on one of its few limits: the Senate filibuster. They are so concerned that Democrats will use the filibuster to block a few far-right judicial nominees that they are talking about ending one of the best-known checks and balances in government. Rather than rewrite the rules of government for a power grab, Republicans should look for ways to work with Democrats, who still represent nearly half the country.
… Judicial nominees have never been immune from filibusters. When Republicans opposed President Lyndon Johnson’s choice for chief justice, Abe Fortas, they led a successful filibuster to stop him from getting the job. More recently, in the Clinton era, Republicans spoke out loudly in defense of their right to filibuster against the confirmation of cabinet members and judicial nominees. Republican senators, including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Mike DeWine of Ohio, used a filibuster in 1995 to block President Bill Clinton’s nominee for surgeon general. Bill Frist, now the Senate majority leader, supported a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nomination. Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, was quoted in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1993 saying, “On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster.”
Now that Republicans are doing the appointing, they see things very differently. Dr. Frist recently declared on “Fox News Sunday” that preventing votes on judicial nominees is “intolerable.” Among the proposals Republicans are floating is the so-called nuclear option. According to Senate rules, changing the filibuster rule should require a two-thirds vote. But in the “nuclear option,” Vice President Dick Cheney, as Senate president, would rule that filibusters of judicial nominees could be ended by a simple majority.
That would no doubt put the whole matter in the courts, an odd place for the Republicans - who are fighting this battle in the name of ending activist courts - to want it resolved. The Republicans would have a weak case. The Constitution expressly authorizes the Senate to “determine the rules of its proceedings.” That is precisely what it has done.
… The Republicans see the filibuster as an annoying obstacle. But it is actually one of the checks and balances that the founders, who worried greatly about concentration of power, built into our system of government. It is also, right now, the main means by which the 48 percent of Americans who voted for John Kerry can influence federal policy. People who call themselves conservatives should find a way of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the oldest traditions in American democracy.
Of course, the flurry of filibuster content from the New York Times today does not equate to a shift in the editorial position that the filibuster is treasured and necessary check on majority rule, but the silence is deafening. This may just be a flash in the pan, but if there is any movement from Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, especially as they command such an impressive majority in the Senate, I for one hope the Times comes to the Republican’s aid for once. Hopefully they’ve learned their lesson about the filibuster now that it is their favorite tool of obstruction in the Senate.
Like it or not, the filibuster protects the minority’s right from getting sidelined in this democracy. And even though Obama and the Democrats have enjoyed such impressive victories, they is still a large section of this country that may oppose policies that the filibuster can prevent. Of course, Republicans shouldn’t grind the Senate to a halt, and I doubt they will with the minimum 41 senators to mount a filibuster. But let’s have some perspective now that the pendulum has swung.
So yay filibuster!
Everyone knows it. It was inevitable. Steve Jobs' master stroke from 2007, which debuted on AT&T's network, will expand to Verizon tomorrow just before noon.
Former First Cat Socks, one of the world’s most famous felines, died Friday at the age of 20 after battling throat cancer since November. A stray cat rescued by the Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, Socks lived in the governor’s mansion in Arkansas and later moved with the family to the White House.
… Using one of the world’s most famous private residences as bait, President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama are unleashing a bipartisan charm offensive and exploiting every square inch of their new home to make friends and influence rivals. The social calendar suggests a return to the days of Camelot.
