Unless I am missing an important point, the filibuster has been stretched to the point of absurdity. I am not a lawyer, but I seem to remember that back in the day, “to filibuster” meant to talk endlessly about a particular bill before the Senate, for so long that a final vote was stalled and eventually withdrawn.
More recently, it has come to mean that unless 60 votes are mustered to close debate (cloture), the bill will automatically be denied the forum to be voted on by the full Senate. (There is a nuance here that I am not clear about, as several bills have passed 51-50, with VP Harris casting the deciding vote)
The latest version of this travesty came with the recent 54-35 vote to end the filibuster on the Voting Rights Act. Many DUers have commented that this tally means that 60.9% of those voting wished to end the filibuster, with 39.1% opposed. And yet, apparently because the magic number of 60 total votes was not attained, the measure died.
But that is absurd, unless I am missing the boat here. Suppose that even more Republicans had left the Voting Right’s session early, and the final vote had been 54-25 - would the Democrats still have failed to end the filibuster?
Or, reductio ad absurdum, what if the final vote had been 54-0? Would that still not have been sufficient to carry the day?
So I am at a loss to understand why Schumer et al haven’t overruled these extreme examples of minority rule. It seems like the Republicans can successfully filibuster by not even showing up. Where is it stated that 60 total votes are needed to end a filibuster, as opposed to 60% of those voting? What am I missing?
|
