Unlike in the House of Representatives, where a simple majority can vote to end debate at any point, the Senate's rules require a three-fifths majority to end debate over senators' objections.
In the past, senators rightly understood that their ability to filibuster was not absolute; it merely gave individual senators leverage to force their colleagues, the House, or the administration to negotiate with them in a debate.
Once a source of leverage that specific senators could use in negotiations, the filibuster morphed into a veto that Senate minorities could use to block legislation favored by the majority.
Even the prospect of a filibuster is a powerful force-in recent years, gun-related legislation has stalled in the Senate, not because a committed minority is filibustering it but because senators on both sides are threatening to filibuster it.
Using the filibuster to obstruct the majority regularly requires minority-party senators to be willing to expend considerable effort to succeed.
Rule XIX limits how many times a senator may speak on the floor in a debate and it stipulates that when a senator is no longer able to talk, he or she has no choice but to yield the floor.
The Senate will rarely need to go to such lengths to overcome filibusters because simply debating a bill before trying to pass it creates buy-in among senators and builds bipartisan support for it.
https://reason.com/2021/01/30/the-senates-problem-isnt-the-filibuster-its-a-lack-of-open-debate/
No comments:
Post a Comment