Senate filibuster can become history

Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, but Democrats won control of the Senate.

Huh? Democrats have held the majority of Senate seats since January 2007, so isn’t that control?

Holding the majority and being in control can be two entirely different matters. Democrats lacked control of the Senate because the filibuster disrupted their agenda. They needed 60 votes to end filibusters, and they frequently watered down bills such as health care reform to pass meaningful legislation.

Now Democrats have an opportunity to water down or eliminate the filibuster, as they are permitted to do on the first day of the legislative session by a majority vote.

If they pass up the opportunity to alter the filibuster and other Senate rules, they are hopeless imbeciles.

Senate rules can be changed by a majority when the next session of Congress opens in early January.

After the trouble the filibuster has caused President Obama’s agenda, it makes sense that the surviving Democratic majority would change the Senate rules applying to the filibuster at its first opportunity.

It is remarkable that the Senate created the filibuster because it disregards the will of the majority.

Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House are authorized to create their own rules. The Senate Web site reports that the filibuster became popular during the 1850’s, but it is unclear how it originated.

Interestingly, some delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 occasionally suggested measures requiring more than a majority in Congress.

Democrats signaled earlier this year that they might move on the filibuster and other rules. A Senate committee was holding hearings on this concern.

Possibly the Democrats’ first inclination would be to amend the filibuster process to ensure that it does not obstruct legislation in any acute way. The filibuster might block movement for a short amount of time, but otherwise the filibuster would be rendered ineffective.

The Democrats probably fear that any change in Senate rules will provoke criticism, especially from Republicans. So what? The Republicans are on the attack no matter what the Democrats do.

The idea of amending rather than ending the filibuster would limit political fallout, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and friends should not worry about it. They should merely do what is best for the nation.

If they do not act against the filibuster and other Senate rules, they will pay for their omission every time they introduce a bill or the president nominates someone for a White House position or judicial seat.

However, Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute offered this measure in a New York Times op-ed last Aug. 28: “The Senate could replace the majority’s responsibility to end debate with the minority’s responsibility to keep it going.

“It would work like this: for the first four weeks of debate, the Senate would operate under the old rules, in which the majority has to find enough senators to vote for cloture. Once that time has elapsed, the debate would automatically end unless the minority could assemble 40 senators to continue it.”

Ornstein emphasizes that the filibuster is useful, and his proposal would allow the filibuster to be put to proper use without being abused. “It gives the minority party the power to block hasty legislation and force a debate on what it considers matters of national significance,” he writes.

If Ornstein’s idea can work, the Democrats might be able to try it. However, does the debate need to extend to four weeks? Isn’t it possible that the Republicans will assemble those 40 senators just to spite the majority?

We may not be sure about its origin, but we know the cost of the filibuster only too well.