Perplexed

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

TPM Reader DC is perplexed …

I’m genuinely puzzled at this. The filibuster, as we know, is rooted in the old Senate tradition of unlimited debate, which can only be waived by an extraordinary supermajority. Some twenty years or so ago, in the interest of keeping the Senate from being utterly tied up, the body changed the rules to permit a sort of virtual filibuster, which still can only be quelled with a supermajority. But here we have a situation in which the threat of unlimited debate is being used to prevent–what? Debate???? Something does not compute. Why can the filibuster rule be used to prevent debate. Even if you like filibusters, it seems an absurd use of the rule.

I’m not sure DC’s chronology is right. I thought the evolution was more complex and over a longer period. But it’s not a bad global point.

Actually, of course, going into this on the health care front. We’re talking about a series of 60 procedural hurdles. 60 votes to start debate. 60 votes to end debate and move to a vote. And probably a bunch of other 60 vote votes for things like emptying the garbage and okaying Orrin Hatch declaring a holy war against health care reform.

Latest Editors' Blog
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: