2 November
Senate Filibusters The United States government can be noted as being one of the most intricate representative democracies in the world. The key to its success lies within the three branch system. Under this model each branch has separate and independent powers as well as certain areas of responsibility so that no branch has substantial power over another. Of the three branches, the Legislative sector is further divided into the House of Representatives, and the Senate. The idea of a bicameral legislature has proven effective, as they tend to act as counter balances to each other. The members of the House of Representatives are more responsive to the needs of the population of the district which they represent, whereas the Senate, (equally represented with two members from each state) tends to represent needs of the entire individual state which they represent. The Senate is often referred to as being the "world's greatest deliberative body"; which in effect can result in stalemates. In this tradition, both Republican and Democratic majorities have used the filibuster, or its threat, to prevent Senate votes on carefully selected pieces of legislation or nominations. The use of filibuster legislation has become increasingly popular within the last twenty-years. Although the term ‘gridlock’ gets thrown around with a bad connotation I feel it’s somewhat necessary when debating significant issues. As Rawls stated throughout his article, “The filibuster is a perfect candidate for this line of questioning: So what?” The filibuster in the U.S. Senate protects the rights of Senators to debate and amend legislation, thus protecting the interests of the American people. The Founders intent for the Senate was to slow the legislative process in order to ‘ensure due deliberation and inquiry’ instead of simply falling to majority rule. I’d like to touch briefly on the notion of ‘nuclear option’, which in essence is quite extreme. The ‘nuclear option’ allows a simple majority to override the procedural rules of the Senate and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. The ‘nuclear option’ has never been invoked, only threatened. Once invoked the ‘nuclear option’ would forever change the procedural rules of the Senate thus barring future filibusters. The immediate outcome would benefit the party invoking the option but by changing the rules going forward the change would probably hinder that party in the future, as well as the opposition at present. Its obvious that few senators would agree to such a diminishment of their individual power, and is generally regarded to be shortsighted. This article refers to five just reasons that the use of filibuster’s ultimately prevents majority tyranny. One of the most important reasons involves the nominating process of presidential appointments. As stated, the leverage of filibusters is that it creates a delay allowing for a more thorough examination of each candidate, which in turn provides for a more equitable system.
The wisdom of the Founders, carried forward by Senators over two centuries, recognizes that the nation needs some procedural safeguards to protect its longer-term interests from its short-term heated disputes. Perhaps the use of such self-control accounts for the fact that our government is still the oldest most involved democracy in the world.