Fili-bluster

If you think endless speaking in legislative chambers to prevent a matter from being brought before the entire body for a vote is an American invention, think again. For example, back in 60 BC, Cato the Younger was prone to make interminable speeches before the Roman Senate, which had a rule that all matters for the day had to be determined by dusk, to oppose legislation. He did it twice to matters pressed by no less than Julius Caesar. The filibuster has been a fixture in England, Canada, Australia, etc. And it very much a part of how the United States Senate has functioned under this rule, and most recently, very badly. The House played with the concept, but as that body grew massive, the practice was eliminated.

Here’s the short take on what how the Senate rule works from Wikipedia: “Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless ‘three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn’ (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster. Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, but only on the 1st day of the session in January or March, using the so-called nuclear option, also sometimes called the constitutional option by proponents. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.”

The first day of the new legislative session approaches, and the big question is whether this log-jamming practice, effectively giving a minority party with at least 41 Senators the ability to force the majority into positions that they might find unacceptable. And since majorities swing one way or another, a vote today by a majority party… could find that party as a minority in future years. With a 53 to 45 split (2 independent) in the U.S. Senate favoring Democrats, the new Congress (the 113^th) is set for filibuster hell unless there is some “force of compromise” that will end that current impasse-prone body. In the current Congress, the Republican minority opposed arenas where it is considered bad form to tread, mostly involving political appointments to high-level executive branch or judicial positions. Will that be the story against next year?

Indeed, the anti-gridlock showdown is approaching: “With his majority enhanced and a crop of frustrated young Democrats pushing him hard, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, says he will move on the first day of the 113th Congress to diminish the power of Republicans to obstruct legislation. ‘We need to change the way we do business in the Senate,’ said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico. ‘Right now, we have gridlock. We have delay. We have obstruction, and we don’t have any accountability.’” New York Times, November 24^th. And this measure has to be introduced on the first day of the new session (January looms) for the reasons noted above.

With the approval ratings for Congress falling through the floor, die-hard conservatives are willing to incur the wrath of their electorate by staying the course. What’s the argument for the filibuster anyway? To some historians, the process keeps legislation from swaying back and forth, creating destabilizing inconsistency, as party control at the Senate level changes. Today, Senators no longer have to talk for hours to stall a bill; the procedural rules simply allow bills without at least 60 willing Senators to bring it to a vote (cloture) to fail. As a counter measure, the Dems have used “a parliamentary trick known to Senate insiders as ‘filling the tree’… [a] convoluted procedure allows the majority leader to claim all opportunity for offering changes to a bill, effectively preventing any other senator from proposing an amendment intended to slow down legislation or force a politically embarrassing vote.” NY Times.

Both parties are to blame for the current stalemates: “[T]he current Republican minority has taken the [filibuster] practice to a new level. During the past three sessions of Congress, the majority leader has resorted to an average of 129 cloture motions [trying to force a vote against Republican opposition], a near doubling from the level when Democrats were in the minority from 2003 to 2007… The current Democratic majority has contributed to the parliamentary tit-for-tat, by filling the tree more than in any previous Congress. It has done so over 20 times in each of the last three sessions of Congress. The previous high had been 11, under Republican leadership in 2005 and 2006.” NY Times. OK America, remembering that this process will apply to any minority party… including the Democrats someday… what are your feelings?

I’m Peter Dekom, and a strong filibuster could push us off the fiscal cliff!