Filibuster reform necessary for Senate
The election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy brought renewed attention to the importance of a 60-vote Senate majority, since Brown now becomes the 41st Republican senator. Yet the Founding Fathers never intended the Senate to require 60 votes for approval of controversial legislation. Through abuse of the process known as filibuster, that’s exactly what has happened.
Traditionally, a filibuster was a technique by which senators took advantage of a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to close debate. It was used rarely and required that the lawmaker who was engaged in the filibuster actually hold the Senate floor indefinitely, through interminable speech-making.
In the past decade, however, the practice has become so commonplace that the threat of a filibuster is sufficient to stall any legislation. We have become a nation in which a super-majority is required to get anything done, contrary to the fundamental concept of majority rule that underlies the Constitution.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, plans to introduce legislation that would enable a majority vote to close debate. Even though the bill has little chance of passage, Harkin deserves credit for bringing the matter to the floor. In a Jan. 4 letter to his colleagues, he noted that filibusters were used just once per Congress in the 1950s, compared to 139 in the last session.
So what do you all think? Should we stop it?
I like it. but then again I would be perfectly happy if they never showed up on the Senate floor.
