So we've all heard the stories. President Obama seemed to highlight it perfectly in his State of the Union speech last night. He repeatedly said something to the effect of "The House has passed the bill. I encourage the Senate to act." But now Republicans are using the filibuster to block virtually all legislation from moving forward in the Senate, a tactic that hasn't been used before to such an extreme degree. If the use of the filibuster so regularly to violate the basic concept of majority rule isn't reason enough to go nuclear, I don't know what is! It is time for Democrats to show some courage ... take on the system (of Senate precedent of filibuster use) ... and restore constitutional majority rule.
The (filibuster) game SHOULD be over! One aspect about the history of the Senate filibuster is indisputable... the filibuster, once reserved for the most extreme circumstances, is now used to block nearly every major piece of legislation by having just 41 Senators stand against it.
According to Wikipedia, the use of the filibuster has increased dramatically since the 1960s ...
The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Robert Byrd (D-WV)[28]. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters.[29] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008[30][31][31], though cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters.[18]
Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly put it best in a Feb. 15, 2009 article, referring to how what once was such a rare occurrence has now become standard operating procedure in the Senate ...
Indeed, what should be seen as a radical break with political and legislative norms barely raises an eyebrow anymore. An important bill will come to the floor, will have the support of 58 senators out of 100, and will fail. Every important bill is shaped with a mandatory super-majority in mind. No one finds that odd in the slightest. If 41 senators don't like a bill, it won't get a vote. It's just accepted, fait accompli.
THE FILIBUSTER GOES AGAINST ANY NOTION OF MAJORITY RULE AND MUST BE ELIMINATED!
Wikipedia again ...
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Ballin that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by majority vote.
Are you convinced yet? There's more...
In 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon issued an advisory opinion stating that no Senate may constitutionally enact a rule that deprives a future Senate of the right to approve its own rules by the vote of a simple majority.[5] Nixon's advisory opinion, along with similar opinions by Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller, has been cited as precedent to support the view that the Senate may amend its rules at the beginning of the session with a simple majority vote.[6]
SO... LETS DO IT!
The history of the filibuster speaks for itself. It is used now more than ever as standard procedure to allow a minority of 41 Senators to block legislation. That smacks in the face of simple majority rule.
Furthermore, the 1892 ruling by the Supremes, as well as advisory opinions by Nixon, Humphrey, and Rockefeller state that a simple majority of Senators can make their own rules.
SO, AGAIN, LETS DO IT! WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
If there was ever a way for Democrats in the Senate to shatter the stereotype of being weak, it is by pulling the trigger... Going nuclear... Senate precedent does NOT win out over the demand of the people for the rule of the majority! COME ON HARRY REID, SHOW SOME SPINE! ... IF BILL FRIST CAN DO IT (OR AT LEAST THREATEN TO) THEN SO... CAN... YOU!
(OR at LEAST require a TRUE filibuster from ONE senator... he/she can't last forever.)