Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
  • Submissions
  • The Roundtable
  • Full Issues
  • Sponsors
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
  • Submissions
  • The Roundtable
  • Full Issues
  • Sponsors
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Rise and Fall of the Filibuster

5/5/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Gabriel Maliha
Gabriel Maliha is a senior at the University of Pennsylvania studying criminology.


The recent consideration by the Senate of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and other important priorities by the new administration has brought to the fore a renewed debate about the Senate filibuster. The procedure was originally conceived as an opportunity for the upper chamber and its members to entertain open and unlimited debate on a particular bill or nominee to convince colleagues of the validity of a particular view. Over the years, it has become a parliamentary obstructive device used by minorities in the Senate to prevent votes and ultimately decisions on specific business before the chamber. [1]


The filibuster was not part of the  original 1789 Senate rules but became so shortly thereafter in 1806. Former Vice President Aaron Burr suggested eliminating limits on debate as would be worthy of a “great deliberative body” and the Senate obliged. [2] The dilatory process was used sparingly until a Democratic minority tried to block a banking bill in 1841. The sponsors threatened but failed to eliminate the filibuster. In 1917, a Republican minority blocked a bill supported by President Wilson to arm merchant marine vessels during WWI. The Senate, under popular pressure, created rule 22, the cloture motion, which allows ending debates if 2/3 of Senators present and voting concur. [3] The 1960’s witnessed a number of highly charged filibusters by Senate Democrats, including attempts to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In 1975, the Senate lowered cloture requirements to 3/5 of Senate membership. [4,5]
The filibuster rules remained unchanged until 2013, when the Senate Democrat majority, frustrated by minority filibusters for executive appointees and Federal District Judges, practically did away with the filibuster for all nominees except for those to the Supreme Court. It remains available to block legislation except budgetary resolution, which is not amenable to filibuster by statute. To get around the 2/3 supermajority required to amend Senate rules, Democrats appealed to Senate president (former Vice President Biden) on a point of order and he ruled the filibuster unconstitutional. The Democrat majority affirmed the ruling with a simple majority.

In 1892, the Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin ruled that the Senate may change its rules by a simple majority. [6] Still, the Senate is empowered under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution to determine the rules of its own proceedings. It elected to continue the filibuster for 225 years until the fundamental changes introduced in 2013. [7]

Opponents of the filibuster charge that minorities in more recent Senates have abused the rules by using the filibuster frequently to block the agenda and nominees of opposing administrations. They cite the fact that 600 of the 1300 filibusters mounted since 1917 have occurred between 2001 and 2013. [8] Therefore, a device meant to uphold minority rights in blocking fundamental legislation is no longer a last ditch effort, but a routine undertaking. Further, with the rule change in 1975 supplanting the “talking filibuster” for the “virtual filibuster,” filibustering senators do not even have to address the floor or be present physically in the chamber. [9] They conclude that the filibuster is no longer a tactic meant to allow senators to convince colleagues of the validity of specific positions by advancing arguments and debate.

Proponents of the filibuster maintain that the filibuster was part of the early Senates in the young republic. It is consistent with the Founding Fathers’ persistent concern that majorities not trample minority rights, especially on important issues. The filibuster is, also, consistent with constitutional design for the upper chamber to “cool down” the enthusiasm of the people’s house. It is important to note that in that regard, only one third of the Senate membership is up for election every two years, while the entire House has to come before the electorate every time. Further, the filibuster is sound public policy, as it encourages bipartisanship in the Senate to produce greater consensus support for legislation and nominees of the President. It encourages legislative compromise enabling the minority to influence legislation and choice of nominees by the executive branch and therefore enables long term stability for statutes and greater confidence in public servants in the executive branch.

On April 6, the Senate abolished the supermajority requirement for cloture on Supreme Court nominees and confirmed Judge Gorsuch to the high bench on April 7. This was not a dramatic or unexpected step, as it was clear that once the Senate had broken with the long standing tradition of accommodating minority rights in 2013, the next step became much easier. Wise senators on both sides of the aisle have understood for more than two centuries that minority and majority status is far from permanent and is always one election away from potential change. Short term advantage is always more gratifying than taking the long view but not necessarily better in the long term.


[1] “Precedence of motions (Rule XXII).” Rules of the Senate. United States Senate.
[2] Binder, Sarah. “The History of the Filibuster.” Brookings Institution (April 22, 2010). https://www.Brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/
[3] “Filibuster and Cloture.” United States Senate. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common briefing/filibuster-cloture.htm.
[4] “Party Division in the Senate, 1789- present.” United States Senate.
[5] O’Keefe, Ed and Kane, Paul. “A brief history of the Senate filibuster fight.”  The Washington Post. (Nov. 21, 2013).
[6] US v. Ballin 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
[7] O’Keefe and Kane, 2013.
[8] Barry, Rick. “Understanding the Filibuster.” U.S. Senate. http://www.brookings.edu/research/tetimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder.
[9] “Understanding the Filibuster: Purpose and History of the Filibuster.” http://www.nolabels.org/understanding-filibuster.
Photo Credit Flickr User: 
Wally Gobetz

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Alana Mattei
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​