If you’re not an avid fan of C-SPAN, the non-profit cable network that carries much of the public hearings and business of the Federal government, then you may not know about their potential big new attractions in the Senate.
Real filibusters.
“He made me filibuster this!” shouted a very young Jimmy Stewart.
Once upon a time, the Senate had real filibusters, which Hollywood dramatized in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939). Politicians actually had to take the floor and declaim for hours on end, hoping the legislation they were delaying would lose support, either as a result of their arguments, or from sheer ennui. Meanwhile, if sixty or more Senators responded positively to a cloture motion, then the filibuster was ended and the voting began, no matter how the Senator felt about it.
Then, more than a few years back, the Senate adopted a new rule which stated that any Senator could notify whoever was running the Senate that day that they sufficiently hated a piece of legislation that they refused to let that legislation come to a vote unless, of course, a cloture motion voided their notification.
And all the effort went out of filibustering. It made it into a video game. And not only no effort, but the Senator didn’t even have to open their yap. Sit back, put their feet up on their desk, take a nap, secure in the knowledge that the legislation would never get its vote.
If my reader is unfamiliar with how the Senate has conducted itself in recent years, especially under GOP and sometime-Senate Majority leader Senator Mitch “No!” McConnell (R-KY), but suspects this could bring the Senate to a grinding halt, they’d be right. In the last twenty years, passing legislation in the Senate has required trickery (the “reconciliation process”, which is exempt from the rule and involves budgets and anything else that sneaks past the Parliamentarian) or the invocation of the Ghost of George Washington, and the latter is making less and less impression upon Republicans.
But now one of the Democrats who opposes changing the rules, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), is showing signs of changing his mind:
Sen. Joe Manchin said Sunday he is open to altering the Senate filibuster to make it more “painful” for the minority party to wield, while reiterating his opposition to ending the procedural hurdle altogether.
“The filibuster should be painful, it really should be painful and we’ve made it more comfortable over the years,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Maybe it has to be more painful.”
Manchin (D-W.Va.) has previously supported efforts to require senators to filibuster by talking on the chamber floor in order to hold up a bill, an idea he raised on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk,” Manchin said. “I’m willing to look at any way we can, but I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.” [Politico]
While everyone is excited about what’s right in front of their nose, I’m wondering what sort of effects this will have beyond the obvious.
- Retirements. Filibustering can take quite a toll on a physical body. A surprising five Republican Senators are already planning to retire in 2022. Will other older members, such as Senators Kennedy, McConnell, and Grassley, finding filibustering to be tougher than putting feet up on the desk and snoozing, decide that they can’t meet the new demand? And how about the older Democrats? Will we see some movement among them?
- Campaigns. This could provide damaging material to competing candidates, not only in that a filibustering candidate can literally be seen to be dedicated to deep-sixing an important and popular piece of legislation – nothing like a visual to rile people up – but who knows what will come out of their mouth? I know when I get tired I’ll occasionally say something I regret. Is this going to become an important part of campaigning?
I must admit, I’m rather hoping that we return to the old form of filibustering, because Senators should be willing to put their political and personal lives on the line if they really dislike some piece of legislation.
And not merely because the legislation was proposed by the opposition.
