Mediaboss Marketing

Barbara Banaian, Times Writers Group Published 1:10 p.m. CT June 2, 2021 | Updated 2:11 p.m. CT June 2, 2021

The term "filibuster" has been in the news a lot of late. It evokes passion. The word refers mostly to obstruction of legislative work by talking or some other procedure, though, prior to that, the Spanish wordfilibustero referred to pirates who pillaged colonies in the West Indies. It has been used since the 1850s to refer to long speeches meant to stop a bill from passing.

Last Friday was a Republican filibuster of a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. This was the first time under President Biden that a bill died. It needed the help of 10 Republicans to pass this legislation. Nobody stood to make a speech because at least one Republican senator had placed a hold on the legislation which in essence acts like a filibuster, as it indicates the possibility of a filibuster. In the case of this bill, a motion to end debate, called cloture, was made but failed.

Barbara Banaian(Photo: Submitted Photo)

There are good and bad things about the filibuster. When a party is in the majority and wants to get things done, they dislike the filibuster and want to rein it in. Since it is not in the U.S. Constitution, it would not be hard to change the rules governing this. But every majority party can expect that it will someday be in the minority and that thought may stay their hand. And the Senate is supposed to be the "saucer"into which the House pours its legislation (while many believe George Washington himself called the Senate this, theres no proof of that.)

Does it hinder action, or bring bipartisanship?I would propose keeping the filibuster, but returning to the days of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Who can forget Jimmy Stewart's impassioned speech (as Sen. Jeffrey Smith) condemning corruption on thefloor of Senate, "I will not yield!" I would favor being in the chamber talking to colleagues and persuading them!

I wont give away the ending except to say, the filibuster lasts 25 hours and changes only one mind. And "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was made in 1939, long before the longest recorded talking filibuster was given by Sen. Strom Thurmond. Rather than exposing corruption, Thurmond was trying to stop the Civil Rights Act. He too failed.

Filibusters do not even need to talk about the matter before the Senate (after the first threehours). In 2013 Sen. Rand Paul filibustered the nomination of a CIA director, not to stop the nomination, but to call attention to the use of drones by the CIA to kill an American considered an enemy combatant.

But at least then the fictional Sen. Smith and the real Sens. Thurmond and Paul tried to persuade people. Now the filibuster involves no speeches most of the time. The hold, and the ability of the Senate to continue business while a hold is in place (which means other senators do not have to do anything to resolve disagreements, just not vote on the bill they disagree over), has made it easier for two sides not to talk to each other.

Likewise later reforms, such as ending the supermajority needed to stop a filibuster for presidential nominations including the Supreme Court, have not made us more bipartisan but rather less. The founders knew what majority vote looked like from their experiences with the British Parliament, and that was not what they had in mind.

There is a "nuclear option," and that is to get rid of the filibuster. Will it make the two parties talk to each other more, or less?I think we know the answer: the Senate would resemble the House, where compromise doesn't matter as much as the majority steamrolls the minority.

In March, President Biden endorsed returning to the "talking filibuster," in which a senator must stay on the floor while debating similar to the scene in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." It might not help in the end, but it would at least get them talking.

This is the opinion of Times Writers Group member Barbara Banaian, a professional pianist who lives in the St. Cloud area. Her column is published the first Sunday of the month.

Read or Share this story: https://www.sctimes.com/story/opinion/2021/06/02/filibuster-rules-have-evolved-create-no-need-talk-through-differences/7496822002/

Visit link:
Opinion: Filibuster rules have evolved to create no need to talk through differences - SC Times