Last week, Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced a bill to reform the filibuster rule, in which sixty Senators are required to end debate and pass a bill. In the bill, the first cloture vote on any bill would still require sixty votes to cut off debate. However, if such a vote failed, the number of votes required for cloture would gradually reduce over time, eventually needing only fifty-one votes, or a simple majority.
The filibuster rule, which has been in effect in it's current form since 1917, has become much more prevalent in the last decade, and has exploded in this congress. In the last congress, cloture votes were invoked almost 140 times.
While filibuster reform probably is a good idea, it is not totally necessary. Yet. Where is the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment? Why hasn't majority leader Harry Reid required these Republicans (and let's face it, some Democrats) to stand on the Senate floor and read the telephone book, or Shakespeare? Or "My Pet Goat"!? It doesn't matter, really. But if Harry Reid is the progressive that he claims to be, if he is an effective majority leader, if he is a Democrat, why can't he get tough with the minority?
In 1957, a Republican Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, conducted the longest filibuster in American history, 24 hours and 18 minutes. What was he fighting against? For what did he take this grand principled stand? He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act. What if we had had a majority leader like Reid in 1957? Would African-Americans still be sitting in the back of the bus?
As it is, 45,000 Americans will die in the next year because they lack health insurance. And Harry Reid is allowing this to happen because he does not want to appear uncivilized, or upset the Republican minority. The American people elected Barack Obama because they were on board with his agenda, but we are allowing the Senate to derail it. If Harry Reid refuses to use the rights of his position to push thru that agenda, then we need to get a majority leader that will.
1 comment:
Right you are, On the Border. The Republicans threatened to get rid of the filibuster if the Democrats used it when they were the majority (Nuclear Option anyone), but they scared Democrats out of filibustering anything. However, they threaten to filibuster absolutely everything, and the Democrats do not call their bluff. What did we work so hard to elect them for? This situation does need to change if any progress can be made.
Post a Comment