The Senate has been in an uproar this past week over rule changes that could take away the Democrats ability to block federal court judgeship appointments. Some Republicans want to reduce the number of votes required for cloture from 60 to 51 making it possible for them to break the filibusters the Democrats are threatening to prevent some federal court nominations from being confirmed.
Last week I listened to two different radio talk shows on my ride home from work, Sean Hannity and Randi Rhoades. I would switch back and forth between them because I can’t take too much of either for the entire ride home. Of course Sean Hannity was incensed that the Democrats would hold up the confirmation vote of any of the Administrations appointees and Randi Rhoades was incensed that the Republicans would consider doing away with the long standing tradition of unlimited debate in the Senate. Neither of them much cared for what the Constitution has to say about the matter or what the people of this country might really need out of all of this.
Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follow:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
There is nothing in the Constitution about how the Senate can be run, it just says that each House may determine its own rules. The filibuster isn’t something that was mandated by the Constitution, it was made up by the Senators and ratified as a rule of their proceedings. Well, actually the filibuster was never actually approved as a rule, it stems from the tradition of unlimited debate. The House began with the same acceptance of unlimited debate as the Senate but after the house grew past a certain size unlimited debate was unreasonable.
I think debate on legislation is a great thing. I also think that Senators should continue to debate legislative actions for as long as they feel necessary. I don’t think reading “pot likker” recipes into the Senate record is debate of legislation. Senator Huey Long did that back in the thirties. He was one of the all time champion filibusterers.
Originally there was no way to stop debate and call for a vote but then in 1917 the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote — a tactic known as “cloture.”* Then in 1975 the senate reduced the votes needed for cloture from a two-thirds majority to a three-fifths majority. If the Senate drops the number of votes needed for cloture down to a simple majority there goes the tradition of unlimited debate. This is not healthy for our country. As it is now at least the minority is heard, but with a simple majority required for cloture legislation will be run though the house like it’s on an assembly line. No time for debate, just pass the bill and let’s get on to the next.
Of couse that’s just what Sean Hannity wants, a rubber stamp for the administration. You’d be hearing a different tune if it was a Democrat in the White House with the Democrats controlling the House and the Senate.
Now just because I’m against altering Rule 22 does not mean that I’m a fan of the filibuster. Debate is one thing, talking on and on about nothing as an attempt to disrupt proceedings is another thing altogether. That’s where the term came from. I’m not sure how the rules should be constructed but the Senate does need some way to stop fellow Senators from talking on and on about nothing.
That’s why I can’t stand hearing Randi Rhoads try to suggest that her motivation for opposing attempts to change Rule 22 is because of her desire to see unlimited debate continue in the Senate. She wants to see the Adminstrations judicial appointees blocked.
If music radio wasn’t so repetitive, NPR wasn’t in the middle of a fund raiser and I cared anything about sports talk I would have a more pleasant ride home of the evenings. Maybe it’s time I looked into satelite radio.
