The Senate has a lot of work to do in its new session, from confirmation hearings to budget matters to legislation on gun policy. But perhaps the most consequential decision the chamber must make has to do with the rules controlling the Senate itself. The filibuster, a tactic by which a minority party can thwart the Senate majority by endlessly dragging out debate, lately has become all too routine a roadblock in the legislative process. As Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell negotiate over possible reforms, they least they can do is require minority parties to carry out a filibuster threat by speaking on the Senate floor.
The filibuster used to be reserved for extenuating circumstances; on matters of import, a senator who believed that the majority is heading in the wrong direction could stop a vote by refusing to stop talking. Now, the accepted practice allows for a silent filibuster, which is merely a threat to delay action (sometimes sent by email). It then requires a super-majority of 60 to overcome it. This kind of filibuster is easy enough, and comes at so low a political cost, that the minority party has every reason to use it regularly.
Comments
This practice should be eliminated ! It just leads to paralysis.
Regardless of which party controls the Senate the silent filibuster is an anti-democractic tactic. If one wishes to debate, to forestall any particular legislation then one must have the courage of their conviction to say, "I oppose" and hold that position for as long as is needed.
How about docking the pay of those Senators who engage the filibuster, say a thousand dollars for every hour?
Given the various maneuvers Reid has made ordinary course in the Senate over the last few years to prevent debate and amendments on the floor of the Senate, the filibuster in its current form remains one of the few and most important institutional checks on the majority party. Perhaps the Senate Democrats should try to relearn how to learn to work with the minority party rather than change the rules of the game to avoid any semblance of bipartisan compromise.
Hancock, my understanding is the Republican's main complaint is; only a certain number of amendments are allowed on any particular bill, and Reid has been letting Democrats use them all before giving Repubs a chance at inserting amendments. Seems to me that an actual, talking filibuster would be the perfect forum at which to make those claims and have them aired out in the Senate and in the press. The silent "filibuster" has to go, it is anti-democratic.
"Reid, who understands that someday Republicans will again be in the majority, is understandably eager to avoid passing a rules change with 51 Democratic votes, as arcane Senate procedure may now allow him to do." And exactly WHAT are these "arcane Senate procedures" thagt the Globe claims to know about? Let's see the Globe back up this statement...Otherwise just wait for the GOP to take control of the Senate. THEN ask for an end to filibusters.
The rule is the majority may install the "rules of the Senate" at the beginning of its session. Those changes can run from the important to the mundane. No one wishes to end the filibuster, but I think regardless of who is in power the "silent" filibuster is bad for the Senate and the country.