• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • All Out Attack By The Left On The Filibuster

    Liberals in America are mad because they  have had a difficult time implementing an unpopular far left agenda, especially with regard to Obamacare. One of the results of this rage is for liberals to attack one of the rules in the Senate that protects unlimited debate and amendment – the Filibuster Rule.

    Rule 22 of the Senate’s rules governs the conduct of a filibuster and requires that a “Cloture Petition” be signed by 16 Senators to commence the process of shutting off debate on a nomination or legislation. The left wants to get rid of this rule because they don’t like the fact that the rule requires a vote of 60 members to shut off debate.  They are mad because they can’t get Card Check and a Public Option passed in the Senate, even when they had a 60 vote Democrat Caucus, so they are going to change the rules of the game to make it easier to pass big government legislation.  The effect of abolition of the filibuster would be to marginalize moderate Democrats in the Senate and eliminate the need for any input from Republicans.

    The Constitution states in Article I, Section 5 that “each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.”  The Senate has passed Rule 22 by a 2/3rds vote.  In 2005, some Republicans flirted with the idea of abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees and the left fought that idea with all they had within the Senate and in left-leaning think tanks.   In 2005, the term used to describe abolishing the filibuster was the “Nuclear Option.”  Basically, this was a means to use a simple majority of the Senate to ignore the rules of the Senate by claiming the filibuster was unconstitutional.

    The Center for American Progress (CAP) set up a page titled The Nuclear Option were they wrote “the filibuster is one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues that come before the Senate.”  CAP hosted a conference titled, Going Nuclear – The Threat to our System of Checks and Balances on April 25, 2005.  John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress spoke at the event where he said:

    by removing the safeguard offered by the filibuster, the nuclear option would seriously and perhaps irreparably damage an institution that has functioned since the its inception under customs and traditions that ensure an atmosphere of careful deliberation and mutual respect.  Ultimately, this is not a dispute between the left and the right.  It is a matter of right and wrong.  It’s a choice between safeguarding our system of checks and balances or destabilizing it; between upholding the Senate’s coequal role in the confirmation progress or diminishing it.

    This same think tank is now messaging for an abolition of the filibuster.

    Other outlets who have advocated the abolition of the filibuster include New York TimesMother Jones, Think Progress, and Washington Monthly.  Daily Kos wants to “end the filibuster.”  Ezra Klein maps out 4 ways to end the filibuster.  Even the President and Vice President have weighed in against the filibuster.  The irony is that many of these same politicians supported and participated in filibusters before they were against it.

    Senator Barack Obama voted on January 30, 2006, to filibuster the nomination of Sam Alito to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Senator Obama filibustered the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations … twice.  The President’s words do not match up with his actions as a Senator.

    Vice President Biden’s record also belies a double standard on the filibuster.  Vice President Biden stated on May 23, 2005. that eliminating the filibuster from the Senate’s rules:

    extinguishes the power of Independents and moderates in this Senate. That is it. They are done. Moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture. They are much less important if you need only 50 votes. I understand the frustration of our Republican colleagues. I have been here 32 years, most of the time in the majority. Whenever you are in the majority, it is frustrating to see the other side block a bill or a nominee you support. I have walked in your shoes, and I get it.

    Evidently some time in the executive branch has changed the minds of our President and Vice President.

    On an interesting note, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) spoke at the CAP public event in 2005 and put the filibuster in historical context.  “Plutarch reported that while Caesar was on sojourn in Spain, the election of consuls was approaching. He applied to the senate for permission to stand candidate, but Cato opposed his request and attempted to prevent his success by gaining time with which view he spun out the debate until it was too late to conclude upon anything that day. Hey! The filibuster has only been around 2,064 years, since circa 59 BC.”  The filibuster has a very long tradition.

    Both Republicans and Democrats have exhibited bipartisan hypocrisy on the issue of the filibuster.  It is time for cooler heads to prevail and retain the long history and tradition of unlimited debate and amendment in the Senate. Any attempt to abolish the filibuster should be met with bipartisan disdain.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to All Out Attack By The Left On The Filibuster

    1. Bruce Haughey, Redwo says:

      Are politicians so short sighted that they do not realize that this change can help them now, but hurt them when they are the minority? Or do the democrats plan on remaining the majority forever. Again, very short sighted.

    2. Bobbie Jay says:

      The bottom line is OBAMA AND HIS FOLLOWERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH! and refuse to acknowledge, the people KNOW THE TRUTH! they continue to set us up for danger and force their authority over the will of the people! changing their own rules as they have not the strength to follow rules, PERIOD!

    3. todd says:

      The filibuster is utterly undemocratic and within the past 10 years has been used way more ofter than EVER before in ways it was never intended to be used.

    4. Ron Derry NH says:

      It worries me that Congress is spending so much effort trying to impose power and not fruitful debate.

      It also worries me that the rhetoric is concentrated on telling us Americans we aren't fit to have a point of view or a different course than they have chosen without consulting us.

      It is beginning to look as though Rush was right in that liberals can not prove their superiority of principles and must shut down debate and opposition with treachery and power, as they can't sustain their views with facts or reality based knowledge.

      It actually frightens me yet once again that Rush is found to be correct….again.

    5. Lazza says:

      This article is utterly intellectually dishonest.

      The senate is constitutionally mandated to operate via a simple majority – as I understand it the original filibuster required the minority to stay on the floor literally continuing the debate. The use of the filibuster was considered a "nuclear option" reserved for last resorts – such as against the civil rights bill.

      From wikipedia:

      "In the 2007-08 session of Congress, Republicans forced 112 cloture votes, nearly doubling the Democrats' record when they were in the minority.

      Filibuster was invoked sparingly in less partisan times – an average of once a year in the 1950s, but 139 times by Republicans in 2008."

      The republicans utterly obstructionist policies have forced consideration of abandonment of the filibuster as it is currently constituted.

      The ONLY reason that the republicans did not invoke the "nuclear option" that they themselves invented was that 7 democrats came across the aisle to co-operate with republicans and move forward the republicans controversial judicial nominees to a majority vote. If republicans would come across the aisle to compromise with democrats in this current congress this would not be under discussion.

      You are correct, however, that democrats were short sighted, self serving and hipocritical to oppose the abolition of the filibuster when they were in the minority. They should have supported the rule change.

      America is totally paralysed by the (bipartisan!!!) abuse of the filibuster by the minority party. The United States cannot hope to solve its many problems & compete in an increasingly competitive global economy without reform in the senate.

      The filibuster must be altered to allow Congress to Act!

    6. Bobbie Jay says:

      Lazza, if you want to know the truth, you will hear it, research it, open your mind to it, instead of listening to words that limit your thinking. Stop drinking the kool-aid and open your mind to the truth and consider the angles.

    7. Adam Illinois, Illin says:

      I support the filibuster for judicial nominees because they have a lifetime appointment and a lot of power. The filibuster prevents anyone – left or right – who is too far outside the mainstream from being confirmed.

      I oppose the filibuster for legislation. If Democrats pass something Republicans oppose, then Republicans can repeal it the next time they are in the majority and vice versa.

    8. Pingback: Obama Hopes to Change the Filibuster | RedState

    9. Pingback: Obama Hopes to Change the Filibuster | The Dane Conservative

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.