There has been a lot of talk regarding filibusters in the news, but I feel like it is a term often used but rarely explained.
Filibusters have been around for decades! The term “filibuster” became popular around the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill. In 1841, Henry Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in efforts to allow the majority, in that instance the Republicans, to close debate on a bill that the minority (Democrats) were hoping to block. At that time, it was frowned upon to attempt to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate. However, Senators did adopt a rule in 1917 that allowed the Senate to end debate with a two-thirds majority vote, which would be called “cloture“. The first time cloture was put to the test was in 1919, ending a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles.
While all of that sounds great, filibustering still occurs due to the difficulty in obtaining three-fifths of the vote (it was reduced to only sixty Senators needed in 1975) to end debate and move to vote on the passage of the bill.
And of course with everything in politics, there are always ways around a filibuster. One exception involves nominating executive branch positions and federal judgeships on which only a simple majority is needed to end the debate (the most prominent example of overriding filibusters is seen with special budget rules).
Filibusters are in the news recently because Washington, D.C. is controlled by the Democratic Party. The Senate, in particular, has experienced a shift in power. In the 116th Congress, the Majority Party (Republicans) held 53 seats, the Minority Party (Democrats) held 45 seats, and 2 seats belonged to independents (both caucus with the Democrats). However, two years later, the 117th Congress now has the Majority Party (Democrats) with 48 seats, the Minority Party (Republicans) with 50 seats, and 2 seats belong to independents (both caucus with the Democrats.) Eliminating filibusters is a reasonable option now because both aspects of Congress and the President are all politically aligned.
What is my opinion on filibusters, you may ask? Sure, I acknowledge that the use of a filibuster does provide a voice to the minority party by allowing them to frustrate the will of the majority. However, it is hard for me to assess if filibusters are effective and truly important. I personally believe in efficiency, as well as compromising. Enacting filibusters ultimately goes against those two values. I think compromise is much needed when it comes to policymaking because clearly the politicians on both sides of the isle lack that. Filibusters just allow a certain political group to drag their feet and not strive to make a compromise and pass bills for the betterment of the American people.
Hi Ashley! I like how you presented the historical basis of the filibuster and how it has evolved through out history up until the present. I agree with both sides of the argument you gave that provided the benefits and drawbacks of the filibuster…I just wish our politicians on both sides could compromise so much more. I would suggest that maybe they reform the filibuster regarding content that be spoken by the minority party in its duration . All I can remember is that video of Ted Cruz literally reading Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham during one filibuster a couple years back, and I thought to myself “What has our country come too lol?”