Daily cartoon / meme roundup. To increase profits as people get poorer and poorer businesses must charge for things that use to be part of the price for the item.

The filibuster is not in the Constitution. But each house is allowed to make their own procedural rules. The Senate rules, unlike the House, trying to be a more “deliberative” body (and with fewer members in the early days) allowed unlimited debate on the floor and unlimited “yields” (handoffs to allies). During such speechifying, no other business could be conducted.

It took a 2/3 vote to stop a debate.

The filibuster arose when Southern conservative senators wanted to block bills, especially in the area of civil rights. Not having the votes, they simply stood and spoke under the rules allowing “unlimited debate” and kept on speaking, handing off (yielding) to accomplices as needed for breaks, and thus preventing any other business from going forward.

Finally, they made a compromise in the Senate rules: they would lower the cloture vote from 2/3 to 3/5 (60 votes in a 100-member senate) and not require senators to actually speak; just invoke filibuster by motion, and allow other business to still proceed on a “two track” basis.

Taking out the hard work of hours and hours of speaking made it easier to invoke and, once Obama became president and McConnell embarked on an unprecedented racist obstruction of the first African-American president, he made a 60-vote supermajority the de facto standard for passing any legislation, with more filibusters during the Obama years than the entire history of all prior administrations COMBINED and then, when he regained the majority, essentially did away with the filibuster for all confirmations and for budget bills (budget reconciliation).

McConnell’s unprecedented ABUSE of filibuster, coupled with the built-in (Constitutional) disproportionate allocation of senate representation, transformed it from a tool for the minority to have a voice in developing legislation, to utter tyranny of the majority, in which senators representing 16% of the population could overrule an overwhelming majority. 

There are ways in which conservative Democrats could reduce the power of the filibuster to obstruct and still go on record as having saved the filibuster, and some of the Democrats who have opposed outright elimination of the filibuster (such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona) have indicated that they might be amenable to reforms such as:

a) amend the process; return to the requirement that they actually stand and hold the floor instead of just invoking by motion. When we had this in the past, filibuster was rarely used.

b) redefine filibuster; redefine what is eligible for inclusion in the budget reconciliation process which is exempt from filibuster

c) make voting rights and election security exempt from filibuster

d) limit the number of times filibuster can be invoked

e) require the speaker to remain on topic (no more reading phone books)

f) reverse the burden of invoking filibuster: right now they just make a motion to invoke filibuster and it takes a 60% vote to stop them. Reverse it. Instead of one person invoking filibuster and 60% having to agree to end it, require them to get 40% of the senate to vote to invoke filibuster — make them get the votes. Make them go on record as voting to obstruct something huge majorities of everyday people want (election reform, campaign finance reform, checks to individuals, a livable minimum wage, gun safety reform) and have to defend that in their next election.

None of these proposed reforms are mutually exclusive! You can do any or all or any combination. And there are likely other ways to reform and restructure filibuster without having to go on record as having actually eliminated it.

For those concerned about the “tyranny of the majority,” what we currently have is a “tyranny of the MINORITY.” We can protect minority interests and allow them to be heard without allowing senators who represent 16% of the population to tyrannize the rest of us.

Yesterday I posted Dr. Fauci’s qualifications to make public health suggestions, and to understand the data / science behind those recommendations.   Let me make clear that the right wing media doesn’t have those qualifications at all.   The people who claim they did their own research are only reading some one else’s summery and the opinions of people not qualified to understand or make those public health opinions.   Scottie