Understanding The Filibuster In The 21st Century

Earlier today over at TalkingPointsMemo, a very useful article appeared that clarified most of the questions I had about the filibuster and the procedures as they currently stand.

Sure, in recent years, threats of filibuster have become more and more common — and getting 60 votes for key pieces of legislation has seemed to become evermore necessary. But at the same time, we rarely actually see senators filibustering, at least not like Jimmy Stewart’s character did in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Why?

The whole piece is worth a close read – though the title of the article gets to the gist of the matter: “How 41 Senators Control The Country Without Filibustering”. There currently are very few actual filibusters – the mere threat of one is enough to derail legislation (as we are currently seeing with the Health Care Reform legislation that has already passed both Chambers of Congress). This occurred, according to Senate historian Donald A. Richie, because:

…leaders — from Democrats Mike Mansfield and Robert Byrd to Republicans Bob Dole and Bill Frist — informally adopted the custom of no longer actually filibustering — mainly, Ritchie said, because filibustering was seen as a waste of time that only provided the filibustering minority an excess of attention.

It turns out that only one Senator from the filibustering group needs to be present to prevent cloture from occurring, but leadership needs 60 votes for cloture present on the Senate floor. Unfortunately, this busts the myth, heard from Republicans from 2004 to 2006 and currently heard from Democrats the country over, that the majority should just let the minority filibuster away until they are blue in the face. I’ve definitely voiced the opinion that Harry Reid should let Health Care Reform be filibustered, then go on camera comparing Republican filibusters to Strom Thurmond filibustering Civil Rights legislation in 1957 by reading his grandmother’s biscuit recipe (fun fact: Thurmond’s filibuster is on record as the longest ever by a single Senator at 24 hours and 18 minutes). Obviously, thats my flaming liberal side mixing with my (very dubious) political tactician side to come to an incorrect conclusion – letting Republicans filibuster would not be a good PR move for Harry Reid and the Democrats!

Once again, I would suggest that everyone read the TPM piece I linked to above, or Ryan Grim’s piece in the Huffington Post last February (during the stimulus package debate). The money quote:

“Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture.”

Yes, delay is the Senate’s middle name.