The Senate Filibuster tactic has been used for many years now. It first started in 1826 and is still relevant in 2017. This tactic is used in the U. S Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when a senator attempts to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. For example, if a senator does not agree or approve of the bill that is being brought up, then they can speak up against it in order to not get it passed. They felt as though every voice should be heard. The filibuster was created by James Madison and other delegates.
The reason for created the filibuster was because Madison and the delegates were worried about “how to protect minority rights from tyranny” (Rourke, pg. 164). They wanted to preserve the rights for minorities and not allow them to be treated unfairly by others. It is interesting not only how the filibuster was created, but the arguments for it, against it, the attempts that have been made to try and revoke it, and efforts made to possibly change the filibuster. Many steps were needed to take in order to fulfil what the delegates wanted to get done.
They wanted to restrain democracy and by doing so, they designed the U. S Senate to play a “cooling” role in order to ease the democracy (pg. 164). One of the first steps, was the senators were chosen indirectly by their respective state legislature instead of being chosen by a popular vote, which is also used today. From the 1900’s to the 1960’s filibusters were considered rare because not many people used this tactic in the Senate. The main reason for the increase in use, was because Southern senators wanting to block civil rights legislation (pg. 165).
Filibustering can also be used to delay or defeat presidential judicial nominations. Filibuster has become a common method because not every senator is going to agree with what in being brought to vote. Senators can even go as far as the “hold” method, which is them not giving their consent to the bill instead of debating about it. Filibusters can be overcome due to Rule 22, which allows there to be a cloture, also known as end of the debate. Holds can also be overcome, according to John T. Rourke, “but it is difficult to so” (pg. 165). The filibuster however was not always something many agreed upon.
There were some arguments in favor of the filibuster, and some against it. There are many who would say the filibuster is extremely useful to the Senate, because it protects the minority by blocking the majority rule. The filibuster is a tactic that is needed in the Senate and actually helps the Senators in the long run. “For example, the filibuster is an essential element in moderating the extremes of our competitive party system” (pg. 171). The filibuster is viewed as crucial to the Senate, because it makes the competitive party system we have become less extreme.
A senator being able to delay his or her vote, it gives them more time to think about who they want to vote on because of the fact there are so many individuals who apply for the exact same position. Senators do not just want to give their votes to any random person, they want to make it count. It has even been said the filibuster process helps smooth out “worst abuses of this special interest participation” (pg. 171). Meaning this process does not allow the “Majority Rule” to be used in order to make a decision.
Although there is a certain amount needed in order to filibuster something, it gives them the opportunity to be heard if they do not agree with what is brought to the Senate. One of the arguments made against the filibuster was the major delay many received due to the Senate extending debate and not giving their votes and answers right away. Rather than the Senate speeding up the process, they actually slow it down, delaying decisions up to an entire year. ” One of the nominees, Lael Brainard, a former colleague of mine at Brookings, was nominated for a key position of Undersecretary for International
Affairs on March 23, 2009 but did not get confirmed until April 20th, 2010, over a year later” (pg. 168). So not only can the Senate block a vote on a bill, but they can also use the filibuster tactic in order to delay a vote on a person they must vote on. Those in the Senate would rather take a long time to decide rather than giving a decision right away. John T. Rourke believe it is wrong for the Senate to detain someone from being a part of the system. “Some nominees have been subject to much more extended delays, putting their personal lives on hold for many months… (pg. 168). It is clear those who are nominated have gone through an entire process in order to even receive the nomination, so for them to have to wait even longer after to get a confirmation just puts a strain on their lives, until they receive their confirmation. Since there have been arguments against the filibuster, it is not surprising there have been efforts made in order to end the filibuster. There was an an attempted promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay to allow the majority to rule in 1841 but that was immediately shut down.
Instead, “cloture” was created which allowed two-thirds of the majority to rule. “The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles” (U. S. S). What happened during this time, was some Senators tried to put a hold on their vote for towards the Treaty of Versailles, but the Senate overall ended up invoking it in order to end the filibuster as a whole. One of the many interesting facts to learn about the filibuster, is the longest speech came from J.
Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 15 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (U. S. S). There was also a decline in the number of those needs to use the cloture originally were two-thirds but many found it difficult to receive that number, which is why it was brought down to three-fifths roughly equaling 60 out of 100 senators (Lewis W. Eigen). The Senate has had many changes throughout history and the filibuster has had a few changes made to it as well, which is also interesting.
As mentioned before, one of the rguments made against the filibuster is the delay it causes when a nomination for a competitive position in the Senate is needed to be voted on. This is ironic because there has been a change made to the filibuster regarding that exact issue. According to Steven Strauss on USA Today, “The Senate changed its rules to eliminate filibusters on Supreme Court nominees, and Congress made other procedural changes to speed up the lawmaking process”. Their main goal now is to get rid of the filibuster that occurs between nominations in order to make sure the lawmaking process does not take longer than it has to be.
This is a positive change because it allows the nominees to get a quicker confirmation compared to how it used to be. It is even riveting to see how the filibuster is used today. New York Time’s Will Democrats Filibuster to Try to Block Gorsuch From the Supreme Court? gives an example of how the filibuster tactic was recently used in order to block a nominee. In order to filibuster President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, it was said that 41 Democrats were needed.
According to New York Times, 43 Democrats were for the filibuster. Because the democrats used the filibuster, Republicans tried to use the “nuclear option” to try to override the filibuster. Essentially, “the nuclear option would change Senate rules to override the filibuster and allow his confirmation vote to go forward” (Wilson Andrews, Audrey Carlsen, Alicia Parlapiano and Jugal K. Patel). Originally, since Donald Trump is a Republican, 51 of the Republicans were needed to vote yes for President Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch.
But since the Democrats did not approve of Trump’s nominee, they decided to filibuster the nominee so they would essentially vote against the nominee. The way I see it, filibustering is useful but at the same time it sets back many individuals from being a part of the Senate. The reason I say this is because I personally believe the filibuster may be more useful when used towards a bill and not towards a nominee. Although I understand the reasoning behind it; Senators want to make sure the person they vote on is someone they see contributing to the Senate.
However, allowing current Senators to delay their vote for someone who wants to be a part of political field does not seem fair. I do agree with how the filibuster has been used before when extending a debate on a certain bill because it allows those who do not agree with it to voice their opinions. If a bill seems unfair it is up to those who feel entitled to filibuster it. The cloture tactic is also something I think is important to use if needed. This tactic allows there to be an end of debate, which is important because it does not allow Senators to have a “never ending” debate.
If the cloture was never created, there would never be a limit or a restriction on how long a filibuster would last. Although the filibuster has been around for quite some time, there could always be ways to improve it in order to make it better. One of the things I would eliminate would have to be using a filibuster to delay a vote for a nominee because it is too time consuming. Rather than delaying the vote and putting a strain on the nominee’s personal life, Senators could come up with what they do not like about the nominee and decide how they could help improve.
Since Senators want to vote for those who could really contribute, Senators could help them become better rather than making them wait a substantial amount of time for a simple confirmation. A time limit could even be proposed in order for Senators to have the right to debate, but not for as long as they want to. The same way the cloture is used to end debate on bill votes. Not allowing the “majority” to rule was one of the main reasons as to why the filibuster was created, and it does an exceptional job of allowing others to speak up against what they do not agree with. This will be something that will forever be in the Senate.
