What's The Matter With A Good Old Fashioned Filibuster?

The main reason the Democrats want a two-thirds majority in the Senate is to ward off filibusters by the minority, mostly Republican, senators who may want to use it to stall proposed legislation indefinitely.

The possibility of a Senate filibuster has been enough to strike fear in the hearts of the majority party since the early days of the Senate and was enough to cause the Republicans, when they were last in power, to threaten the "nuclear option" against Democrats who might want to use this tactic. The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure by which a simple majority vote can stop a filibuster or eliminate the practice altogether. Now the Democrats presumably can also threaten or actually use the nuclear option, but thus far they have given no indication that they are even considering it. It would be a shame if any Senate majority would ever invoke this power.

The filibuster grew out of a time-honored Senate tradition of allowing free and unlimited debate on any issue. It wasn't until 1917 when cloture--the necessity for a 2/3 majority to stop a filibuster--was passed.

The aim of a filibuster is for the minority to hold the Senate floor indefinitely in an effort to wear down and/or eliminate the opposition or in order to force a compromise. This means they have to speak nonstop. The rules do not say that the filibustering Senators have to stay on the topic or even to make coherent remarks. Filibusters invoke the memory of Senators reading from telephone books and sleeping on cots or at their desks in the early morning hours. Filibusters have lasted for days.

The filibuster hasn't always been put to good use. During the 1960's this tactic was notoriously used to try to thwart civil rights legislation. It didn't succeed. In fact, filibusters rarely succeed, except to make Americans aware of their positions.

Still, this option should remain if for no other reason than the voice of the minority may be heard. These days simply the threat of a filibuster has been enough to send Senators scrambling for a compromise. In a way that's too bad.

What is wrong with a good old filibuster in Congress? Let the Senators read textbooks or passages of Sanskrit or talk about botany. Let them spend the night in the Senate chamber. In all of that issues of real substance still have the chance to be voiced. I personally would truly enjoy the spectacle.

The tradition of free and unlimited debate should not disappear from the houses of Congress.