Yet again I am in debt to that exceedingly shrewd commentator, David French, at The National Review who, well ahead of the game, warns of the increasing political pressure, from either side, to banish the filibuster. The notion of a filibuster, in which one side gears up to engage in non-stop speechifying in order to talk out a proposal with which they passionately disagree, is more of an American practice than a British one. It requires a wide and deep and passionate belief to organise and to carry it out, consequently it only arises rarely.
However, Mr. French reminds us that these are passionate and divided times and should the Democrats succeed in winning both the Presidency and the Senate then given their vaunting ambition they might well be tempted to do away with the irritating filibuster procedure in order to ram through gun-control laws, ultra-green lunacy and all sorts of other game-changers against which they have railed for years. Similarly, of course, should the Trump Republicans sweep the board as Americans recoil from Democrat loony-socialism, then they might find a filibuster-free environment exceedingly tempting.
Mr. French summarises it thus:
The filibuster helps lower the true stakes of American elections. It’s one of the last measures left in American politics that limits the centralization of power. And it helps ensure that significant reform carries with it significant public support. It’s a check on the very forces that could tear our nation apart. It must be preserved.
I couldn't have put it better myself which, of course, y'all knew already!
And a nation torn apart will be ruled by one thing. The gun.
Posted by: Whitewall | Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 12:28
Harry Reid had no trouble abolishing the filibuster when he thought it suited. Any other Senate leader could do the same. The convention having been abandoned once cannot be reinstated short of a constitutional amendment.
It's passing is indeed regrettable, but it is past and it would now be stupid of either party not to to recognise that.
Posted by: Pat | Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 14:55
The filibuster isn't what most people think. It came into being accidentally and been constantly abused as a parliamentary trick for the past few decades:
"The ability to block a measure through extended debate was an inadvertent side effect of an 1806 rule change, and was infrequently used during much of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1970, the Senate adopted a "two-track" procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item, instead of the previously held simple majority standard. As a result, the modern "filibuster" rarely manifests as an extended floor debate. Instead, "the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier years."[2] This effective supermajority requirement has had very significant policy and political impacts on Congress and the other branches of government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
Where have all the "constitutional originalists" gone?
Posted by: Bob | Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 16:45