Some Seek to Kill the 60-Vote Filibuster

(CBS/iStockphoto)

In the Senate today, as the health care debate has ably illustrated, it takes 60 votes to pass virtually any major piece of legislation.

That's because of the filibuster, the now widely-used practice of keeping debate going in perpetuity on a bill in order to kill it. Under Senate rules, the only way to defeat a filibuster is to get 60 votes – nine more than you would need simply to pass the measure.

The filibuster is a self-imposed Senate rule, and, as James Fallows details here, it hasn't always been such a factor in Senate business. Filibustering was rare for most of the Senate's first two centuries, though perhaps more effective; for much of that period, backers needed 67 votes to overcome a filibuster.

The Senate changed the rules in 1975, so that it would only take 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Not too long after that – beginning roughly around the time Bill Clinton came into office – filibustering went from a rare maneuver to common practice. It's been particularly popular among Senate Republicans in the most recent Congress, as Norman Ornstein illustrates here.

"Republicans have invoked filibusters or used other delaying tactics on controversial issues like Medicare prescription drugs, the war in Iraq, and domestic surveillance—and on non-controversial issues like ethics reform and electronic campaign disclosure," he notes.

Now there is growing momentum to change the filibuster rule – which, opponents are quick to point out, is not written into the Constitution. Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters he is considering re-introducing a bill to significantly soften the power of the filibuster.

Harkin first introduced his bill in 1995 – with Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman as a co-sponsor. Lieberman, of course, recently leveraged the threat of not voting with Democrats in order to get major concessions on the health care bill, something he would not have been able to do without the current filibuster rules.

Harkin's bill keeps the 60-vote rule for the first vote but lessens it with each subsequent vote – after a week of debate, he suggested, the number of votes needed to defeat a filibuster would drop to 57. That process would continue until the simple majority of 51 votes was needed to end debate.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is among those calling for an end to the current filibuster rule, which he suggested in a column effectively paralyzes a Congress that needs to deal with major issues like climate change, financial reform and the budget deficit.

"Nobody should meddle lightly with long-established parliamentary procedure," he writes. "But our current situation is unprecedented: America is caught between severe problems that must be addressed and a minority party determined to block action on every front."

Changing the rule would not be easy no matter who is in power, since the minority party would fiercely object – and, indeed, likely filibuster the effort. But since Democrats currently have a so-called "supermajority," a caucus made up of 60 votes, it's not inconceivable that they could do so. And that would mean they would have a far easier time passing their legislative agenda than they do under the current system.

Health Reform Bill Passes Key Senate Test
What's Next for the Health Care Bill?
Comparison of Senate, House Health Care Bills
Washington Unplugged: Rep. Stupak Opposes Senate Abortion Compromise
John McCain Evokes Bernie Madoff in Health Care Bill Critique
Bob Corker: Health Care Bill Process Lacks Integrity
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

[pnyikos]

I'd like to see a tally of how many times the Democrats used the filibuster on essentially different bills/nominations and how many times the GOP tried to use it under the same yardstick. ["100 times" is misleading--they've tried to do it at least twice on this bill, plus there was an amendment which also needed 60 votes, which the Democrats might have filibustered if necessary--but it got shot down without a filibuster.]

I am a bit surprised to learn that Lieberman co-sponsored the Harkin bill back in 1995. I think he had a change of heart even before the last election, when he called the filibuster one of the "great protections we have" and generally agreed with a statement by Sen. Orrin Hatch comparing the filibuster to a firewall:
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/lieberman/2008/11/04/id/326383

[Deanostring]

Oh, and if you don't like our corporations; you don't like our military, or constitution--then get the hell out. Go to some third-world **** hole, and learn how to make huts out of banana leaves. We'll see just how much you hate America and our way of life then.

[democracy1]

First of all, I don't think you have a CLUE regarding the Constitution.

Secondly, why should middle-class American working citizens support corporate abuses that essentially rape the American taxpayer? Time to break up companies that are "too big to fail". It's been done before (when Ma Bell was broken up--under Reagan, with a majority Republican Congress [98th], no less, BTW).

And last, being against unnecessary wars is NOT being against our military personnel. On the contrary, we don't want our young men and women to sacrifice their lives for nothing--or worse, for corporate entities to make a quick buck off their deaths.

Your type is the epitome of what is wrong with this country at the moment--you can't think in any other terms than partisan talking point rhetoric, with no real thought or logic whatsoever. You put party and ideology first and country and TRUE patriotism last. You would have done well in the brownshirts. Shame on you.

If you can't be bothered to learn the history of your own country, then perhaps it is YOU who should leave,

[Deanostring]

If this bill were so good, why did Harry Reed have to bribe members into voting for it? What these Democrats are doing, is criminal. Every single credible pole--Gallop, Rasmusen, Zogby--all show the majority of the American people are against this. But Obama and his cronies don't care. I promise you one thing, though--they will next year, when the elections roll around.

[watervliet]

WASHINGTON THE SAME OLD POLITICS.

[amacd385]

Let?s use the Health Care bill as an Obama ?teaching moment? --- not him ?teaching us? but us ?teaching him?!

This 'Health Care' (sic) bill reminds me of the illogic of the Vietnam War:

"It became necessary to destroy the bill in order to save it"

And, in fact, the reason that this illogic applied then in the Vietnam War "abroad", and now in the corporatist tyranny over health care "at home" is precisely the same reason --- that a ruling-elite corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE makes all decisions, and not the people of America.

As Hannah Arendt presciently warned from her direct experience with empires:

"Empire abroad (always) entails tyranny at home".

Let?s teach Obama a critical lesson that he needs to understand. The famous old phrase was, ?What goes around, comes around?. But today, ?What goes around, comes home to roost? as his own minister tried to teach him.

Let?s tell Obama:

?If you are only going to pose as another front-man for the ruling-elite Global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE that controls our country --- by hiding behind the fa?ade of its two-party ?Vichy? sham of democracy --- then that?s not the ?hope? and ?change? that we voted for.

We?ve been fed that old ?Okie Doke? (as you called it) since the Vietnam War, for forty years!

Now if you really believe that times they are a changing, and that you don?t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowin, and that ?Yes we can? confront Empire, then why don?t you give us a chance, and help lead us in a second American Revolution for democracy against Empire --- cause if you?re not going to lead, then at least ?get out of the way?.?

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

[democracy1]

by amacd385 December 21, 2009 2:59 PM EST
Let?s use the Health Care bill as an Obama ?teaching moment? --- not him ?teaching us? but us ?teaching him?!

This 'Health Care' (sic) bill reminds me of the illogic of the Vietnam War:

"It became necessary to destroy the bill in order to save it"

And, in fact, the reason that this illogic applied then in the Vietnam War "abroad", and now in the corporatist tyranny over health care "at home" is precisely the same reason --- that a ruling-elite corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE makes all decisions, and not the people of America.



So you're blaming the lack of bipartisanship of the party of NO and their use of 98 filibusters this year ALONE on Obama? You obviously have NO idea as to how our political system works. Obama cannot mandate the scope and tenor of the bill. Contrary to the kool-aid talking points of the teabaggers, he is NOT a dictator. He's made more progress on this issue than any other President since Teddy Roosevelt supported it waaay back when. But he can't do it alone. Give the man a break.