The Filibuster (Part 4 of 4)

Defense Against the Filibuster

It is only appropriate when talking about the filibuster to mention the tools used against it. While it could come to a simple battle of wills, more often than not there are tactics that are employed to stop filibusters.

If a filibuster is being employed or threatened to be employed, there is only one thing the majority party can do to directly stop filibusters. By invoking Senate rule 22, the debate has a cap of thirty hours. Enacted in 1917, cloture requires a super majority of three-fifths which in the current Senate means sixty votes. This cap of thirty hours does include the time spent on quorum calls, voting on amendments, as well as debate. [1] The debate seems obvious, but what is really important is that cloture effectively stops all forms of filibuster that were mentioned in the previous section. the minority can still obstruct all they want, but it only acts a disservice to themselves. The best the minority can do is to use the time wisely in order to draw public attention to issues or maybe even persuade the majority although the latter is much less likely. The other great thing about cloture is that if it fails the first time, the majority can try as many times as they wish. [1] Due to the partisanship in the Senate, cloture votes now average fifty-two per Congress [1] which is why the Senate is sometimes called the 'Sixty vote majority'.

Oddly enough the filibuster can be stopped by forces outside the Senate. If the House passes a budget bill through reconciliation, then the rules change for the Senate. A bill cannot be filibustered, for the time limit is twenty hours which is ten hours less than the cloture motion. Also amendments proposed to the bill must be germane and deficit neutral. The other great aspect of reconciliation for the majority is that it only requires a simple majority in order to pass. [2]

The last defense tactic that will be discussed is - oddly enough - a filibuster brought forth by the majority party! The following video demonstrates what is called "the reverse filibuster".


The great irony with this event is that the filibuster has always been the sword of the minority. Taking place in November 2003, the Republican Majority was fed up with the Democratic Minority constantly filibustering Republican President George Bush's lower court nominations. This filibuster served two purposes: bring to light what the minority party was doing and - if the majority was really lucky - wait for the minority to fall asleep or stop paying attention, so they can quickly confirm the nominees. [3] Unfortunately for the Majority, this failed on both of its goals. No judge received a single vote and there was no public outcry. The reverse filibuster was seen simply as theater between the two sides. [4] It is unlikely that the majority will use this tactic ever again.

Conclusion

The filibuster is without a doubt the most unique and powerful tool in the Senate. From its early days in the Roman Senate to today, the power of the filibuster has had an astounding impact on the political world. Granting the minority such power to rival the majority has prevented good legislation, stopped bad legislation, and even provided a few laughs. Giving the Senate defense tactics to use against the filibuster has only further intrigued the political process. It is safe to say that without the filibuster, the United State of America would be much different from what we know today.

Previous

References:

1. Sinclair, Barbara (2007). Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington D.C.: CQ Press (pp. 67 - 69)
2. Oleszek, Walter J. (2007) Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington D.C.: CQ Press (pp. 68-69)
3. Associated Press (2003, November 12) Senators Prepare for All-Night Judges Marathon. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102813,00.html
4. Smith, Steven S., Roberts, Jason M., Vander Wielen, Ryan J. (2009) The American Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press (pp. 327)