Back in 2005, the Republican Party had a majority in the United States Senate, and were getting increasingly irritated at the Democrat Party, who were using the procedural tool known as the filibuster to block President Bush's chosen appointments from being confirmed and several pieces of Republican legislation.
The filibuster, as you probably are aware, gives the minority party in the Senate a chance to block legislation or an appointment. The filibuster was introduced in order to make big changes (like amendments to the U.S. Constitution, changes in Senate rules or Presidential impeachments) difficult to achieve even with a majority. There is a way that a filibuster can be broken: by having a 'supermajority'. This used to be 67 votes but was reduced to 60 in 1975. Even though breaking a filibuster is easier today than it was (7 votes easier, obviously) getting the 60 vote supermajority is still difficult, so the filibuster remains a potent tool.
The problem is that while the filibuster was introduced as a means of stopping the majority in extreme circumstances, its use has been steadily increasing. This increase was, as I mentioned, extremely frustrating to the Republican Party of 2005, who threatened to use the 'nuclear option' to eliminate it altogether because of the Democrats putting it to such regular use.
In an ironic (but not at all unexpected) twist; Republicans are now doing exactly what they decried the Democrats for. This is probably because they are now in the minority in both Houses of Congress and no longer have the White House. They have used the filibuster since becoming the minority (in 2006) more times than it has ever been used before. That is not hyperbole. There has genuinely never been a Senate in the history of the United States that has used the filibuster this much. Ever. The Senate Republicans are using the filibuster for almost every single piece of legislation. As a result, the United States government has come to a screeching halt. The House of Representatives has passed several pieces of legislation that are becoming clogged up in the Senate as the minority has a standing filibuster on just about everything.
While I understand the idea behind the filibuster it has become a tool to ensure that nothing can pass the Senate without 60 votes. That's out of 100. To pass anything in the Senate today two-thirds is required. It is no longer majority rule. The United States has lost its ability to produce any new legislation unless the minority gets its own way completely. That does not sound democratic (small d) at all.
The Senators have become childish in their use of the filibuster. This is not a criticism solely of the Republicans (although they have brought this problem into very sharp focus), because if the rule stands with Democrats not getting anything passed while in the majority does any thinking person really believe that they will not get revenge in the minority by using it in the exact same way?
While many people are crying for the abolition of the filibuster I do think that some things do need a supermajority to pass. There should, therefore, be a set of filibuster rules implemented. Ones that state under which circumstances one is permitted. For all other legislation it should be a simple majority rule. I say that knowing that should this happen there will be majority rule bills passed that I will object to, but even with that knowledge it still seems like the most democratic and adult way to keep America moving.
The United States has been a beacon of democracy for a long time, so it saddens me to see such a seemingly trivial piece of procedure stopping it from moving forward. Call me a naive optimist but I still have hope (the real kind, not the Obama campaign slogan) that this problem will be overcome. With any luck it will be sooner rather than later.
The filibuster, as you probably are aware, gives the minority party in the Senate a chance to block legislation or an appointment. The filibuster was introduced in order to make big changes (like amendments to the U.S. Constitution, changes in Senate rules or Presidential impeachments) difficult to achieve even with a majority. There is a way that a filibuster can be broken: by having a 'supermajority'. This used to be 67 votes but was reduced to 60 in 1975. Even though breaking a filibuster is easier today than it was (7 votes easier, obviously) getting the 60 vote supermajority is still difficult, so the filibuster remains a potent tool.
The problem is that while the filibuster was introduced as a means of stopping the majority in extreme circumstances, its use has been steadily increasing. This increase was, as I mentioned, extremely frustrating to the Republican Party of 2005, who threatened to use the 'nuclear option' to eliminate it altogether because of the Democrats putting it to such regular use.
In an ironic (but not at all unexpected) twist; Republicans are now doing exactly what they decried the Democrats for. This is probably because they are now in the minority in both Houses of Congress and no longer have the White House. They have used the filibuster since becoming the minority (in 2006) more times than it has ever been used before. That is not hyperbole. There has genuinely never been a Senate in the history of the United States that has used the filibuster this much. Ever. The Senate Republicans are using the filibuster for almost every single piece of legislation. As a result, the United States government has come to a screeching halt. The House of Representatives has passed several pieces of legislation that are becoming clogged up in the Senate as the minority has a standing filibuster on just about everything.
While I understand the idea behind the filibuster it has become a tool to ensure that nothing can pass the Senate without 60 votes. That's out of 100. To pass anything in the Senate today two-thirds is required. It is no longer majority rule. The United States has lost its ability to produce any new legislation unless the minority gets its own way completely. That does not sound democratic (small d) at all.
The Senators have become childish in their use of the filibuster. This is not a criticism solely of the Republicans (although they have brought this problem into very sharp focus), because if the rule stands with Democrats not getting anything passed while in the majority does any thinking person really believe that they will not get revenge in the minority by using it in the exact same way?
While many people are crying for the abolition of the filibuster I do think that some things do need a supermajority to pass. There should, therefore, be a set of filibuster rules implemented. Ones that state under which circumstances one is permitted. For all other legislation it should be a simple majority rule. I say that knowing that should this happen there will be majority rule bills passed that I will object to, but even with that knowledge it still seems like the most democratic and adult way to keep America moving.
The United States has been a beacon of democracy for a long time, so it saddens me to see such a seemingly trivial piece of procedure stopping it from moving forward. Call me a naive optimist but I still have hope (the real kind, not the Obama campaign slogan) that this problem will be overcome. With any luck it will be sooner rather than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment