For the Love of God, Just Call It a Filibuster

[n2doc]

by JAMES FALLOWS



I am in Internet range for only a few minutes, so let me just type this right out:

Today a provision that would increase background checks for gun purchases was blocked in the Senate, even though consideration of the bill was supported by 54 senators representing states that make up (at quick estimate) at least 60 percent of the American population.

The bill did not fail to "pass" the Senate, which according to Constitutional provisions and accepted practice for more than two centuries requires a simple majority, 51 votes. Even 50 votes should do it, since the vice president is constitutionally empowered to cast the tie-breaking and deciding vote, and Joe Biden would have voted yes.

It failed because a 54-vote majority was not enough to break the threat of a filibuster, which (with some twists of labeling) was the real story of what happened with this bill. Breaking the filibuster would have required 60 votes.

Since the Democrats regained majority control of the Senate six years ago, the Republicans under Mitch McConnell have applied filibuster threats (under a variety of names) at a frequency not seen before in American history. Filibusters used to be exceptional. Now they are used as blocking tacticals for nearly any significant legislation or nomination. The goal of this strategy, which maximizes minority blocking power in a way not foreseen in the Constitution, has been to make the 60-vote requirement seem routine.

As part of the "making it routine" strategy, the minority relying on this strategy keeps repeating that it takes 60 votes to "pass" a bill -- and this Orwellian language-strategy comes one step closer to fulfillment each time press reports present 60 votes as the norm for passing a law.

more
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/for-the-love-of-god-just-call-it-a-filibuster/275087/

[GeorgeGist]

1. Hear, hear!