Let's say USA The Senate became incompetent it's like assuming that water is wet or the night sky is dark.
An institution that bills itself as “the greatest deliberative body in the world” must serve as a cooling saucer to check the more irascible House of Representatives, bringing weight and wisdom to bear on the great challenges of our time. Instead it's turned into an unsightly mess deadlock and guerrilla hacking.
This is partly the merit of the filibuster, one of the most distinctive features of the Senatewhich over the past decade or so has been abused and abused to such an extent that it has become, in the words of congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein, a unique “weapon of mass obstruction.”
Democrat Jeff Merkley, the junior U.S. senator from Oregon, has spent years on a largely one-man crusade to reform the filibuster and restore some sunshine and self-discipline to the chamber.
In 2022, Merkley and his allies was within two votes on changes to legislation on voting rights. He continues to seek support for a broader review.
“It's important that people see what their representatives are arguing about and then have the opportunity to voice their opinions,” Merkley said, speaking from the Capitol after the Senate vote.
“Without the public being able to see the obstacle,” he said, “they [can’t] really respond to it.”
What follows is a discussion of the congressional process, but before your eyes glaze over, you must understand that the process is what determines the way many things are done (or not) in Washington, DC
The filibuster, which has changed over time, concerns how long senators are allowed to speak on the Senate floor. Unlike the House of Representatives, which has rules limiting debate, the Senate has no restrictions unless a vote is taken to end debate and force a decision. More on this a little later.
In its broadest sense, the filibuster is a way to protect the interests of a minority of senators, as well as their constituents, by allowing a small but determined number of lawmakers—or even a single member—to prevent a vote by commanding the floor and talking non-stop.
Perhaps the most famous and certainly most romanticized version of the filibuster occurred in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Fictional Senator Jefferson Smith played by James Stewartnegotiations are brought to a complete collapse as a way to attract the attention of the whole country and expose political corruption.
Filibuster James Stewart was nominated for a leading actor Oscar for his portrayal of Senator Jefferson Smith in the 1939 classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
(From the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)
IN Frank Capra classicthe good guy wins. (This is Hollywood, after all.) In real life, the filibuster has often been used for less noble purposes, most notably to undermine civil rights laws over the years.
The filibuster used to be a rarity, its power allowed to decide all but the most important issues. But in recent years the situation has changed radically. The filibuster – or rather the threat of a filibuster – has become almost routine.
Part of this has to do with how easy it has become to screw over the Senate.
Participants no longer have to keep their word and talk non-stop, testing not only the strength of their arguments, but also their physical strength and bladder control. Nowadays, it is enough for a legislator to simply declare his intention filibuster. Typically, legislation is then shelved and the Senate moves on to other business.
According to Ornstein, this painless approach changed the very nature of the filibuster and changed the way the Senate operated, much to its detriment.
The onus “has to be on the minority to actually put themselves on the line to provoke a larger debate” — a la the fictional Jefferson Smith — “and hope that they can change minds along the way,” said Ornstein, a distinguished scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “What has happened is that the burden has shifted to the majority [to break a filibuster]which is a misrepresentation of what a filibuster is supposed to do.”
To end a filibuster, using Senate terminology, 60 votes are needed. This means legislation now effectively requires a supermajority in the 100-member Senate to pass. (There are workarounds that, for example, allowed President Trump's massive tax and spending bill pass by vote 51-50With Vice President J.D. Vance We announce a tiebreaker.)
The filibuster gives the minority excessive power.
To give just two examples: there is strong public support universal background checks for gun buyers and greater transparency in campaign finance. Both issues received majority support in the Senate. No matter. Legislation aimed at achieving each of these goals has been broken repeatedly to death.
This is where Merkley comes in.
He would not eliminate the filibuster, a prerogative jealously guarded by members of both parties. (In a rare show of independence, Republican senators rejected President Trump's call to scrap the filibuster to end the recent government shutdown.)
Rather, Merkley would eliminate what has come to be called the “silent filibuster” and force lawmakers to actually take the floor and publicly defend their positions until they win, give up, or physically give up. “My reform is based on the premise that the minority should have a voice,” he said, “but not a veto.”
Merkley suggested that forcing senators to stand up and speak would make the filibuster more difficult, end its indiscriminate abuse, and – ideally – engage the public in a way that allows them to exchange private messages with fellow senators – I disagree! – No.
“Because it's so visible publicly,” Merkley said, “American citizens have an opportunity to weigh in, and it has consequences. They can paint you as a hero for your obstruction, or as a bum, and that will be reflected in the next election.”
Restoration power rests entirely with the Senate, where lawmakers set their own rules and can change them as they see fit. (Nice job if you can get it.)
the filibuster was changed to. In 1917, senators passed a rule allowing debate to be closed if two-thirds voted to close the debate. In 1975, the Senate reduced this number to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members.
Most recently, Democrats changed the rules to prevent most presidential nominees from filibustering. Republicans expanded the rule to include Supreme Court nominees.
Reforming the filibuster is hardly a panacea. The Senate has humiliated itself by ceding much of its power and becoming nothing more than an arm of the Trump White House. Fixing this requires more than just a procedural overhaul.
But forcing legislators to stand their ground, make their point, and seek to rally constituents rather than raise their pinky and shut down the Senate? This is worth talking about.
