EDITORIAL: U.S. Senate should stop stifling debate
Jan. 22—The filibuster is an important tradition, essential to the character of the Senate, supporters of the rule say; however, the current rule no longer respects that tradition.
The filibuster has been called a way of talking a bill to death.
Many of you will remember Jimmy Stewart's noble "talk till you drop" stand against corruption in the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
The filibuster has been touted as a tool to ensure the minority isn't steamrolled by a narrow majority and as a method to slow ill-considered or controversial bills, forcing Senate compromise.
The marathon of talking isn't what happens today. The Senate now has a silent filibuster, one which never actually takes place. Instead, the chamber must overcome a threatened filibuster to even begin debate. All that is required to filibuster now is a letter to Senate leadership objecting to the bill. So, instead of talking a bill to death, the current rule prevents talking about it altogether.
The filibuster isn't in the Constitution. It was an accident of history that wasn't even initially recognized.
Each legislative chamber is responsible for setting its rules, and a streamlining of the Senate rules pushed by Vice President Aaron Burr and passed in 1806 left out the rule that allowed "calling the question," which was used to end debate and call for a vote on the matter before the Senate.
The first filibuster took place more than 30 years later, in 1837. It was rarely used until the 20th century, mostly to delay legislation and attempt to force a compromise. Most filibustered measures eventually saw a vote.
There were a number of rule changes relating to the filibuster, including the introduction in 1917 of a "cloture" vote — a call to limit debate and then proceed to the floor vote on the measure — initially by a 67-vote threshold, now by 60 votes.
In the 1970s, revisions in the filibuster rules flipped the tradition on its head. Now the filibuster prevents discussion of a measure, and cloture brings it to the floor.
In this topsy-turvy environment, the use of the filibuster to choke off and defeat measures rapidly increased.
The silent filibuster stifles debate in what is often referred to as the world's greatest deliberative body. Instead of encouraging the airing of issues, it shuts them down with a few pen strokes.
The traditional filibuster required a significant commitment. It was used on fewer measures and was more difficult to abuse.
And because it took energy and stamina to maintain, it also required both sides to value compromise and treat it as an exception, a tool to be used only on those matters of deep concern.
The Senate should resist the calls to end the filibuster. It should, instead, restore the traditional talking filibuster.
