[Peace-discuss] Filibusters (fwd)

Wed Jan 15 09:41:54 CST 2003

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 15 Jan 2003 05:22:39 -0000
From: MoveOn Bulletin <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
To: Dr. Paul Patton <ppatton at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Filibusters

FILIBUSTERS

MoveOn Bulletin, US Edition
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
Editor: Susan Thompson
susan.thompson at moveon.org
Editorial Assistant: Leah Appet
leah at moveon.org

Subscribe online at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

Contents:

 1. Introduction: Talking a Bill to Death
 2. Editor's Note
 3. One Link: In Defense of the Filibuster
 4. What is a Filibuster?
 5. Notable Filibusters
 6. Filibusters to Fight Bad Policy
 7. Credits
 8. About the MoveOn bulletin and MoveOn.org

INTRODUCTION: TALKING A BILL TO DEATH
-------------------------------------
Filibustering, or refusing to yield the floor to allow the Senate to vote
on a bill, is a powerful tactic of last resort. Although the threat of
filibustering is used more often than actual filibusters, it remains a
potent political tool to delay legislation.

Unfortunately, since the option to filibuster is open to both parties,
filibusters have been used to block positive legislation in the past (one
good example would be civil rights legislation). They also give individual
Senators a great deal of power to block Senate votes, raising the charge
that filibusters are anti-democratic.

However, labelling filibusters as anti-democratic ignores the fact that on
some occasions, a minority of senators may actually speak for the majority
of the populace, making filibusters a stop-gap against policy-making that
does not represent these interests. The current political situation is a
good example. Since both the House and Senate are controlled by the
Republicans, filibusters are the most potent tool left which can be used
to oppose new legislation supporting the Bush administration's
policies--policies which the majority of Americans may not even agree
with, such as war on Iraq. They are, in essence, a tool to fight the
"tyranny of the majority." That's why many members of peace and social
justice movements are arguing for the use of filibusters to block
far-right judicial appointments, and why they have supported Senator
Byrd's threatened filibusters against the Homeland Security Bill and war
on Iraq.

The filibuster is, after all, just a tactic made possible by the current
structure of the Senate. As long as the option to filibuster remains,
senators will continue to use it to oppose both "good" and "bad" bills.
While it is important to acknowledge the sometimes unfortunate history of
filibusters, what is more important is evaluating whether or not a
filibuster is a smart strategic move in any given political situation. And
at this point in history, they may be the last best resort that we have.

EDITOR'S NOTE
-------------
Although it's been a wonderful experience, I regent to inform our
readership that I'll be leaving MoveOn this week for other opportunities.
Thank you for your support. I've especially enjoyed the many kind emails
and suggestions you've sent me over the past months. Take care and never
give up hope that committed people working together can make a difference.
Sincerely,
Susan Thompson

ONE LINK: IN DEFENSE OF FILIBUSTER
----------------------------------
Despite its often-cited dishonorable historical association with
anti-civil rights Senators, the filibuster (and the threat of the
filibuster) has been used more and more frequently. As this article notes,
"According to a 1995 survey published in the Brookings Review, there was
an average of one filibuster per Congress in the 1950s, eleven per
Congress in the 1970s, and nineteen per Congress in the 1980s. The 1991-92
Congress, the last one counted in the survey, saw a total of thirty-five
filibusters."

In this article, a progressive lawyer argues that filibusters are, in
fact, useful political tools that should be employed in the near future to
block the appointment of far-right judges to the federal judiciary.
Currently, there are almost 80 vacancies within the judiciary, and about
20 more will open this year. President Bush has already demonstrated a
preference for extremely right-wing judges, and it is likely that he will
choose nominations based on this preference.

"The use of the filibuster is undemocratic, and unquestionably so, to the
extent that democracy is equated with simple majority rule. But if
democracy is seen as a more complex process in which minorities, too,
deserve a voice--and which even recognizes that public officials who
belong to a political minority may nonetheless represent majority views on
certain issues--then filibusters may have a legitimate role to play."
http://www.counterpunch.org/mariner1126.html

WHAT IS A FILIBUSTER?
---------------------
The word filibuster comes from "filibusteros," an old word for pirates. A
filibuster is basically an extended debate in the Senate, which has the
effect of preventing a vote, since a vote can only occur after a debate
ends. It is used exclusively in the Senate because (unlike the House)
Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote. Individual Senators
filibuster simply by refusing to yield the floor--essentially, they just
continue to talk about whatever they can for as long as they can. A
filibuster can be ended by a two-thirds majority vote called a "cloture."

This is a good quick overview of the history of the word "filibuster." It
is in point-form and includes two mildly comical illustrations.
http://www.moveon.org/r?227

A good general overview of filibustering in history.
http://www.thisnation.com/question/037.html

This is another overview of the filibuster, which is a bit more concise
and explains the events that introduced cloture as a method of ending
filibusters.
http://www.moveon.org/r?228

NOTABLE FILIBUSTERS
-------------------
In 1917, Robert La Follette used a filibuster to oppose arming merchant
ships against German submarine attacks, an act that he believed would take
the nation closer to involvement in World War I. In the face of
accusations of treason and threats of expulsion, La Follette delivered a
speech defending the right of free speech in times of war; the speech has
subsequently become his most famous. When the war ended, pending expulsion
resolutions against La Follette were dismissed, and he has since been
named as one of the Senate's five most outstanding former members.
http://www.moveon.org/r?229

Huey Pierce Long, who served in the Senate until 1932, was infamous for
filibustering, and often filibustered when he felt that the interests of
the rich were being served over the interests of the poor. During his
longest filibuster, he even resorted to providing his recipes for fried
oysters and potlikkers.
http://www.moveon.org/r?230

In a 1953 filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation, Wayne Morse set a
new record with a speech that lasted for 22 hours and 16 minutes. The
previous record had been set in 1908 by his mentor, Robert La Follette,
who spoke for 18 hours.
http://www.moveon.org/r?231

Unfortunately, filibustering was used frequently by Southerners in the
'50s and '60s to oppose civil rights bills. One filibuster against the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 lasted 75 days, and Strom Thurmond holds the
individual filibuster record, for a 24-hour speech he gave in an attempt
to block civil rights legislation in 1957. He is now the oldest Senator as
well--he had his 100th birthday in December 2002.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,854730,00.html

This Time article from 1957 gives an account of Thurmond's record
filibuster and why it angered even Thurmond's colleagues. (Note that since
this is an online version of the original article, it uses the term
"Negroes.")
http://www.moveon.org/r?232

In 1964, the Senate was finally able to get enough votes to invoke cloture
and end a filibuster on The Civil Rights Act, which "provided protection
of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities'including
private businesses offering public services'such as lunch counters,
hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the
law of the land." The cloture ended the filibuster of Senator Byrd, who
spoke for 14 hours and 13 minutes straight.
http://www.moveon.org/r?233

The first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination
occurred in 1968, over President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas
for the position of Chief Justice. Fortas was too liberal for many of the
Republican senators and Southern conservative Democratic Senators; his
reputation also suffered because of his role as advisor to the President
and a scandal involving his acceptance of large amounts of private money.
A filibuster successfully stalled his confirmation, Republican Richard
Nixon became President, and a conservative was nominated to the position.
http://www.moveon.org/r?234

The campaign finance reform battle of 1988 is one of the most dramatic
filibusters in Senate history. Republicans filibustered against a campaign
finance reform bill, and, in retaliation, Senator Byrd invoked a
little-known provision that forced Republicans to the floor at 12:30 a.m.
He sent the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest them and bring them to the floor,
prompting many senators to run and hide--Senator Bob Packwood was
literally carried back onto the floor, and one senator injured his fingers
in an attempt to keep the Sergeant-at-Arms out of his office. In the end,
the Democrats were unable to get cloture and the bill was dropped.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/campaign/issues/1988_retro.html

FILIBUSTERS TO FIGHT BAD POLICY
-------------------------------
This brief article explains why the appointment of Supreme Court Justices
is important enough to warrant filibustering:

"An enormous amount is at stake in the judicial confirmation process. A
change in two votes on the Supreme Court could mean the overruling of Roe
vs. Wade and a woman's right to reproductive choice. In the years ahead,
federal courts will be deciding crucial questions concerning the federal
government's power to provide remedies for civil rights violations,
including employment discrimination based on race and gender.

Also, the federal courts are the essential and only check against
excessive government interference with individual rights in the name of
the war against terrorism. Indeed, in every area of personal freedom, from
freedom of speech to privacy, American law and policy will depend on the
composition of the courts." http://www.talkleft.com/archives/001381.html

Senator Robert Byrd recently waged an undeclared filibuster against the
Homeland Security Bill (which has since passed). It was not considered a
true filibuster because Byrd did not hold the floor continuously; however,
it involved the same tactics of stalling using lengthy, irrelevant and
colorful oratory. Among other things, Byrd read magazine articles and gave
a lecture on the origin of the term "whip." "It's a filibuster, except in
name," said Marshall Wittman, congressional analyst at the Hudson
Institute in Washington. "This is as close as we get to it. The Senate has
come to a halt for all intents and purposes."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020924-79699986.htm

Senator Byrd also threatened to filibuster President Bush's proposal to
attack Iraq and succeeded in delaying it, sparking a wide-ranging call for
letters and calls of support among peace activists. The Washington Post
referred to Byrd as the "king of gridlock" and compared his recent
filibustering to his former opposition to civil rights and membership in
the Ku Klux Klan.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021011-807083.htm

A 2002 Democratic filibuster by Senator John Kerry and Senator Joe
Lieberman successfully prevented the passage of the controversial energy
bill which would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to
oil drilling.
http://www.greenworks.tv/radio/todaystory/20020418.htm

CREDITS
-------
Research team:
Dean Bellerby, Susan Bunyan, Lita Epstein, Terry Hackett, Sharon Hametz,
Matthew Jones, Linda Langness, Cameron McLaughlin, Janelle Miau, Vicki
Nikolaidis, Sarah Jane Parady, Kim Plofker, Jesse Rhodes, Ora Szekely,
Bland Whitley, and Mary Williams.

Proofreading team:
Madlyn Bynum, Eileen Gillan, Mary Anne Henry, Kate Kressman-Kehoe, Kendra
Lanning, Mercedes Newman, Dawn Phelps, Rebecca M. Sulock and Rita
Weinstein.

ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
----------------------------------------
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free, biweekly email bulletin providing
information, resources, news, and action ideas on important political
issues. The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it at that
address. The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.

MoveOn.org does not necessarily endorse the views espoused on the pages
that we link to, nor do we vouch for their accuracy. Read them at your own
risk.

MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that
gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their lives.
MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the Internet to
democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public awareness
of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy campaigns to
encourage sound public policies. You can help decide the direction of
MoveOn.org by participating in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223

To remove yourself from this list, please visit our subscription

management page at: http://www.moveon.org/subscrip/i.html?id=962-483317-HkOkg1WYtrdVAcLdFwta1g