The word "filibuster" comes from the Dutch word meaning "pirate.” Members of the U.S. Senate have pirated debate for as long as the institution has existed. Initially, House members were permitted to filibuster as well, but their growing numbers soon made the practice inadvisable. In 1872, Vice President Schuyler Colfax struck a blow against the expeditious handling of Senate business with his ruling that “under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending issue.”
In the Senate, unlimited debate was permitted until 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson suggested the Senate adopt a new rule: a two-thirds vote (67 members) would close down ("cloture") a filibuster. In 1975, the required vote count was reduced to three-fifths (or 60 members).
Republicans also have threatened to request a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian that Senate rules make filibusters on judicial nominations illegal. A parliamentarian's ruling can be upheld by a simple majority of senators.
Their reasoning will be that the federal constitution requires that the president makes such nominations "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" and that that means an up or down majority vote by the full senate.
That plan is referred to by both parties as a "nuclear option.” Democrats say it would blow up the Senate's collegiality and force them to bring all action to a halt. They also say that reasoning is bullshit and no one believes it, including Vice President Cheney.
“Collegiality” - A term used to represent a situation in which colleagues share equally in power and authority. Colleagues are those explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose. Thus, the word collegiality can connote respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it.
O.k., the filibuster was started so that each colleague would have his chance to voice his thoughts, pertinent to the pending issue. Both sides are guilty of not following the intent of the action. But will anyone deny that stalling an action indefinitely by talking about any subject ad infinitum was not the intent Vice President Colfax had in 1872. (During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers.")
All senators have an equal vote when there’s a floor vote and the majority tally of the votes cast decides the issue. There are exactly 100 senators for a reason. In the Senate, each state gets equal representation. The system was designed to reflect the will of the majority of the senators; not the states, not the population, and not the political parties. MAJORITY – one more than 50% of the votes cast. And it was intended there be 3 “classes,” one-third of the population to be elected to 6-year terms every 2 years.
Although I’d employ every legal means available to me to win my point, I’d just not feel right about reading Shakespeare for hours on end so I could prevent 99 other colleagues from doing their job. Their job is to decide issues by voting isn’t it? So, I really wouldn’t feel too bad if there was a time limit placed upon my orations, or if 1-more-than-50% of my colleagues in attendance told me to sit down and shut up after I’d been given a reasonable amount of time to say my piece.
The guys who wrote our Constitution were a pretty smart group; we haven’t had to make too many changes. I accept that the rules say our President appoints folks to different jobs and the Senate is supposed to agree or disagree. They’re not supposed to hide behind a rule that was created for an altogether different, and legitimate purpose and using it as a loophole, refuse to do their jobs. And I really bristle when the minority throws a tantrum and threatens to “bring all action to a halt” if they don’t get their way. Kind of like the brat who takes home the only baseball because his team is losing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment