Jim Stillman
Nevar
Cynical Abuse of the legislative filibuster
July 17th 2010 13:29
First, a definition: A filibuster is a delaying tactic that is a part of the rules of the United States Senate. According to etymologists it is a word that comes from the Spanish filibustero meaning "freebooter” or "pirate." The origin seems to be that a person who filibusters is plundering the time and focus of a deliberative body, like a legislature. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing or prohibiting a filibuster, other than the authority given to each of the two Legislative bodies to establish its rules of procedure.
A very brief explanation of how the procedure works to delay legislation in the Senate, the House of Representatives having rejected the procedure in the early nineteenth century, is that a proposed piece of legislation, supported by a majority of the Senate is held up by unrelated and unlimited “debate” and a vote on the merits is prevented. In order to prevent perpetual deadlock, the Senate allows a cloture vote, a vote to end debate and force the issue to a vote. Over the years, the number of votes required for cloture has been modified, but the result hasn’t changed. A minority of legislators is able to deny the duly elected majority the opportunity to pass laws that reflect the wishes of the electorate.
There is danger in this tactic and Alexander Hamilton, one of the ”founding fathers” so admired by the far Right, wrote in the 1787 Federalist Papers that anything other than majority rule is harmful.
…[I]ts real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. … If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And … then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
In theory, the filibuster can be used to prevent legislation that is supported by a majority and, indeed, the public at large, but is threatening to the country or simply wrong. Some 70 years or so, the motion picture Mr. Smith Goes to Washington had James Stewart speaking non-stop against graft-ridden proposed legislation and false accusations about his honesty until he faints from exhaustion. (At the end, the bad guys repent and all is well.) Unfortunately, however, most filibusters are for less noble causes.
In the 1930’s, the filibuster was a common device by Republicans to contest many New Deal proposals by Franklin Roosevelt including an ill-advised and wrong attempt (in my opinion) to expand the Supreme Court. Thirty years later, southern Democrats used the filibuster to prevent or defeat many civil rights laws. Both parties have used the filibuster or threat of one to thwart judicial nominations made by a president of the other party.
As the country becomes more and more polarized, less willing to compromise, legislative action is less and less effective.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the right or wrong of the positions of those previous filibuster participants, it must be conceded that their motives were open and sincere. The object was directed at specific legislation deemed –by them-- to be against the country’s or society’s interests.
It’s different now.
The threats of filibuster by Republicans against every proposal by President Obama are not based on the merits of any particular Bill. The specific legislation is not even considered; it is enough if any proposal of the president be rejected.
For example, the Senate has been holding off a vote on extending unemployment benefits by threat of a filibuster. They are taking these steps for reasons having nothing to do with the extension itself. Approximately 2 million people will have benefits denied, benefits that are meager but vital for literal survival. The economy would be infused with the money received by the unemployed. Passage of the extension would be a win-win proposition; people would be provided basic money to pay the rent or mortgage, feed their children, make the car payment. At the same time, merchants would have customers for their goods. Economists estimate that for every $1.00 provided by unemployment benefits, the nation’s economy is stimulated by $1.90! Would there be an increase in the national debt? Certainly, but in a time of recession, the amount of debt is irrelevant. And, in any case, the Party who had been in control of the Executive and Congress and took the country from a huge budget surplus to a massive deficit is hardly a group to accuse Democrats of being spendthrifts!
In any event, whereas Democrats, hoping for retaining Congressional control, might wish to take dramatic steps to improve the economy, Republicans are using every tool at their disposal to prevent that. The GOP is causing Americans economic pain for short-term political gain; we're not going to see much in the way of economy-improving legislation in the months ahead.
Harry Reid: "They think the worse the economy is come November, the better they're going to do election wise."
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): "If [the GOP] can stop the recovery from occurring, if they can create as much pain as possible, people will be angry and will not vote at all or will vote against those in the majority."
Back to the filibuster. Remember who is using it and for what purpose. The Republicans are deliberately obstructing the electorate’s repudiation of the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush (43) regime. The emasculation of government regulation and its replacement with reliance upon banking and other giant corporations to regulate themselves has led to the financial collapse from which are slowly recovering, the abuses of big-pharma and the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
Is this what you want?
| 91 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
