This essay will look at arguments and concepts that were found stimulating in regards to the provided context of politics and the political scientists that have provided different views on similar topics and contexts. The essay will also look at concerns, disagreements and questions with the concepts that were encountered, in addition to the linkages, connections and negations arising from the discussed issues.
The filibuster rule requires that there is a minimal requirement of 60 individuals in the Senate to vote for a nomination, bill or legislation in order for it to get the consideration that it requires to be debated in the house. The filibuster is seen as being used as a delay tactic, and in some cases, to stop the debating of a bill in Senate. This perspective is seen as being wrong by some members of the public and section of the Senate because it requires that the bill or nomination get that many votes even if it is due to the objection of just one member or just one issue raised by a member of the Senate who has a different view from the rest of the members of the house. The members of the public have criticized the Senate as lacking focus because the filibuster move has been used to come in the way of appointment for judges, executives and bills that have been proposed in the house.
One of the most popular filibuster moves occurred recently in 2009 when the Republicans opposed the Obama healthcare bill which fuelled demands from the members of the public and media for imposition of a limit on which the members of the Senate can hold debate over an issue in Senate. Some politicians feel that the United States cannot achieve meaningful progress in future as long as the filibuster is in place. According to minority leader Ms Pelosi, the alternative that an only 50 member vote would be sufficient to defeat a filibuster should be chosen; because a 60 vote requirement is too high. The original intention of putting the filibuster in place was noble; to ensure that the executive are put in place through “checking on the decisions that they make such as nomination of qualified judges who would be impartial regardless of their political affiliations.
Cloture has been proposed as one of the most effective ways that would effectively deal with a filibuster through placing a time limit on the time within which legislature or other matters would be under discussion by the Senate. According to Arenberg and Dove, Cloture was introduced in 1917, but has only been successfully used for five times; which has been blamed on the Senate’s habit of getting used to filibusters (17). According to Arenberg and Dove (19) the need for the filibuster is defended and attacked by different political parties depending on their agenda at that particular time. To the layman, it appears that the use of filibusters in Congress and in the House is meant to frustrate the efforts of opposing political parties; Democrats and Republicans; depending on who is proposing a bill or nomination; on the grounds that it is done for the purposes of increased duration for debating. The possibility of a filibuster, the duration it takes for a cloture and post cloture process to be administered, is one of the greatest influences on how a bill is brought before the Senate by sponsoring members. This might affect the effectiveness of the proposed bill; rendering it less efficient in the long run. Different members of the Senate have opposing views about whether the filibuster should be removed or continue to be used. One of the most important reasons as to why the filibuster continues to be supported is that it gives a voice to the minority in Senate.
According to Binder, Madonna and Smith, a Nuclear Senate style proposal to conduct matters in the House would have resulted in a near war state. The Nuclear Senate approach would have resulted in high levels of filibustering towards the nomination of judges (730).
Looking at the evolution of how Senate matters are conducted, one can come to the conclusion that the minority members have used caution in the past in the matters that they filibuster or obstruct. The minority in Senate tries and ensures that the issues that they raise are relevant to the matters or legislature that is being discussed. This restraint is one of the reasons why the filibuster is seen as being necessary to ensure that the legislation that is passed is thoroughly debated on.
Throughout history, senators have changed their preferences as to how the Senate should be run in terms of who holds power; majority and minority groups; and over which issues. Opinions and preferences have varied over time over party affiliations and interest held over the legislature that would be passed. The changes in the duties and expectations that are expected of different organizations are some of the reasons as to why there have been changes in how the Senate debates or/ and want changes to be made in passing legislature. Unified and workload approaches are some of the theories that have been proposed as being a reason for the change in the manner in which senators view and propose changes in procedures to enacting laws (Koger 710). The procedures that come with passing legislation are necessary to ensure that all the bills that are brought before Senate are relevant, and any amendments that can be made to lead to better outcomes have been considered. It is for the maintenance of this thoroughness and need to take national matters seriously, that the filibuster should be upheld and maintained.
Arenberg, Richard & Robert Dove. Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of the Senate.
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2012. Print.
Binder, Sarah., Anthony Madonna and Steven Smith. Going Nuclear, Senate Style. Perspective
on politics. 5 (4) 720 740. 2007. Print.
Koger, Gregory. Cloture Reform and party government in the Senate, 1918 1925. University of