The Decembrist: What I Learned About Filibusters From Writing One
The Decembrist: What I Learned About Filibusters From Writing One: "Opponents of the filibuster argue that without it, the Senate would be a responsive, majoritarian institution. In fact, it would be a tightly controlled institution, like the DeLay House, just a lot less representative. The right of unlimited debate and unlimited amendment is a critical part of what makes the Senate an open institution, and losing it would be very costly to progressives at any time when they did not have complete control of both houses and the presidency."
I am not really a big fan of the filibuster, but I am really, really not a fan of the bullying tactics of the Republicans on this issue.
FactCheck.org has an article "debunking" the People for the American Way ad.
I have written, via e-mail, repeatedly, complaining about the factcheck.org piece, and have not received an acknowledgement. The factcheck.org contains at least one obvious factual error and makes several questionable or unsupported assertions.
The obvious factual error is this: "Under present Senate rules, 60 votes are required to end debate. That means, as a practical matter, that 40 of the 100 senators can block any measure – even one that is supported by a majority – by refusing to allow it to come to a vote." The less innumerate among you, will, of course, recognize that it would take 41, not 40, Senators to defeat a motion for cloture. Beyond that, it is not clear that the rule allowing for unlimited debate imposes a supermajority requirement.
The rule allowing unlimited debate requires Senators to hold the floor and talk about the issue; the rules do not allow irrelevant reading of the telephone book, for example, though Strom Thurmond's alleged reading of the telephone book is always cited. The effort required is, itself, a bar to filibustering everything and anything a Senator may be opposed to. And, it is dramatic and draws attention to an issue -- a "fact" to which factcheck.org chooses not to draw attention.
I am not really a big fan of the filibuster, but I am really, really not a fan of the bullying tactics of the Republicans on this issue.
FactCheck.org has an article "debunking" the People for the American Way ad.
I have written, via e-mail, repeatedly, complaining about the factcheck.org piece, and have not received an acknowledgement. The factcheck.org contains at least one obvious factual error and makes several questionable or unsupported assertions.
The obvious factual error is this: "Under present Senate rules, 60 votes are required to end debate. That means, as a practical matter, that 40 of the 100 senators can block any measure – even one that is supported by a majority – by refusing to allow it to come to a vote." The less innumerate among you, will, of course, recognize that it would take 41, not 40, Senators to defeat a motion for cloture. Beyond that, it is not clear that the rule allowing for unlimited debate imposes a supermajority requirement.
The rule allowing unlimited debate requires Senators to hold the floor and talk about the issue; the rules do not allow irrelevant reading of the telephone book, for example, though Strom Thurmond's alleged reading of the telephone book is always cited. The effort required is, itself, a bar to filibustering everything and anything a Senator may be opposed to. And, it is dramatic and draws attention to an issue -- a "fact" to which factcheck.org chooses not to draw attention.
posted by Bruce Wilder at 8:58 PM
<< Home