The year-long scuffle over the Supreme Court’s ninth seat ended Friday morning, when the Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last February. Voting largely along party lines–save for three Democrats–the 54-45 vote capped weeks of fierce debate, culminating in a historic rule change that could further deepen the partisan rancor in the Senate.

After failing to secure the 60 votes needed to break a Democratic filibuster, Senate Republicans on Thursday triggered the so-called “nuclear option,” effectively disposing of the filibuster option for Supreme Court nominees. As a result, the 60-vote threshold dropped to a simple majority which, with 52 members in the 100-member chamber, Republicans had no trouble reaching.

“[Gorsuch] has sterling credentials, an excellent record and an ideal judicial temperament,” Sen. Mitch McConnell said after the vote. “He has the independence of mind for fairness.” Throughout 20 hours of questioning from the Senate during his confirmation hearings last month, Gorsuch was predictably elusive, neglecting to say where he would stand on specific issues.

Democrats said his strict interpretation of the Constitution put him out of the “mainstream,” and argued he too often ruled in favor of big corporations. But from the beginning, the fight was a referendum on the man who nominated Gorsuch, President Donald Trump. It was also retribution for McConnell’s refusal to give Merrick Garland–who President Barack Obama nominated to the seat–a hearing. McConnell argued a sitting-duck president should not have the authority to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court.

But despite weeks of mostly uniform Democratic resistance to Gorsuch, three Democrats, all from states that Trump captured in the election, supported him: Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin III (WV), and Joe Donnelly (IN). Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia did not cast a vote.

With an immovable Democratic resistance threatening to derail the nomination of a candidate who, by many metrics, was qualified, Republicans took the extreme step of pursuing the “nuclear option.” For legislative votes, however, the filibuster will remain in place. The move was not without precedent. In 2013, then-Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid dismantled the filibuster option for lower federal court picks and cabinet appointees.

After leading the resistance against Gorsuch, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said he hopes Gorsuch will not be beholden to the man who nominated him to the court. “I hope Judge Gorsuch has listened to our debate here in the Senate, particularly about our concerns about the Supreme Court increasingly drifting towards becoming a more pro-corporate court that favors employers, corporations and special interests over working Americans,” Schumer said, imploring Gorsuch to be “the independent and fair-minded justice that America badly needs.” Gorsuch will be sworn in on Monday.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Day After the Rule Change, Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Neil Gorsuch will likely face an uphill battle in securing the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat. On Thursday, the last day of Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation hearings, Democrats signaled they would filibuster President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. That would leave Republicans with two options: introduce a new nominee, or pursue the so-called “nuclear option,” and obliterate the filibuster possibility for Supreme Court nominees.

In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Minority Leader, said Gorsuch “will have to earn 60 votes for confirmation,” adding: “My vote will be no.” As the rules stand, Gorsuch would require 60 votes–eight Democrats along with the 52 Republican Senators–to pass. If Republicans decide to scrap the filibuster option, a simple majority would be sufficient.

Voicing a common concern among Democrats and liberal groups, Schumer said he fears Gorsuch would interpret the law in an ultra-conservative manner. “His career and judicial record suggest not a neutral legal mind but someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology,” Schumer said, adding that if Gorsuch cannot clear the 60-vote mark, “the answer isn’t to change the rules,” but “to change the nominee.”

If Republicans, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), choose to scrap the filibuster–something Trump has expressed support for–they would not be without precedent. In 2013, Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader at the time, changed the rules for most presidential appointments, including federal judiciary nominees and cabinet appointees, to require simple majorities instead of the 60-vote threshold. Reid, who recently retired, kept the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees.

In undoing the filibuster, Reid and most Democrats (a few opposed the move) said it was a necessary response to what they saw as unprecedented Republican obstruction. Republicans saw it as a gross abuse of power that would come back to haunt Reid. McConnell called it a “power grab.” Indeed, many of Trump’s less-popular cabinet appointments narrowly passed the Senate, and likely would have been thwarted had the ability to filibuster been in place.

Gorsuch’s best chance at securing the nomination could come through the handful of Democrats who will be up for re-election next year in states that Trump won. But if Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), who is up for re-election next year, is a harbinger of how his colleagues will vote, Gorsuch would fall short of 60 votes. “I have serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch’s rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy,” Casey, said on Thursday. Gorsuch, he said, “employs the narrowest possible reading of federal law and exercises extreme skepticism, even hostility, toward executive branch agencies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats Signal That They Will Filibuster The Gorsuch Vote appeared first on Law Street.

It all began almost exactly one year ago: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in his hunting lodge in Texas. We all know what happened next. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s seat. Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, refused to allow Garland a hearing. The stonewalling paid off when Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. On Tuesday, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge in Denver, to fill the vacant post. But Gorsuch has a number of hurdles to clear before he can take a seat on the most coveted bench in the land.

First, he must complete a questionnaire that can run up to a few hundred pages long. Gorsuch will have to cite every opinion he has written. He will also have to divulge all of his sources of income–including speaking fees–and any essays and other documents he has written. The Senate will examine his answers, the FBI will conduct a background check, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct investigations of their own.

Next, after procedural obstacles are cleared, the long and arduous journey to the confirmation hearing will begin. Gorsuch will meet privately with Senators of both parties. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans will hash out the details of the confirmation hearing, such as when it will be held, and how many witnesses will be allowed to participate. To prepare for the hearing, which can last three to four days, Gorsuch will undergo a mock hearing with his advisers, where they will try to foresee any questions that might be hurled his way.

The final step, a Senate vote, is where things can get really interesting. This is no ordinary vote. Many Democrats vividly remember how Republicans treated Garland; others seem ready to support Gorsuch. Confirmation, as the rules currently stand, requires 60 Senate votes. There are 52 Republican Senators and 46 Democrats (and two Independents). Therefore, if the GOP unanimously backs Gorsuch, they would need eight Democrats to push him through.

But the chorus of Democrats who wish to obstruct Trump’s nominee as the Republicans did Obama’s nominee is growing. As the rules stand, they do have that ability: Democrats could choose to filibuster and effectively refuse to give Gorsuch the 60 votes he needs to pass. There are signs, however, that McConnell is willing to change the rules to lower the threshold of votes needed to pass to 51, or a simple majority vote. If that happens, Gorsuch would sail through the confirmation vote.

In a meeting with McConnell and other Republicans, Trump seemed to support a rule change if it comes to that. “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,'” he said. In 2013, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader at the time who has since retired, provided a blueprint for a rule change. Responding to Republican opposition to Obama’s agenda, Reid slashed the filibuster option for cabinet positions and other presidential nominations, including judicial nominees. If McConnell embraces the same route, the rule change would affect Supreme Court nominations beyond Gorsuch, beyond Trump’s presidency, and beyond the current Republican hold on Congress.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens Next for SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below

Trump Tries to Steady His Campaign With Anti-Clinton Speech

Trump’s anti-Hillary Clinton speech aired this morning at 11AM and he was more egotistical than ever. Trump said: “All these problems can be fixed. But not by Hillary Clinton, only by me.” He went on to make a preposterous demand that Bernie Sanders’ voters join Trump’s campaign and vote for him. Trump also called Clinton a “world class” liar. But it looks like Trump, too, is familiar with dishonesty, as CNN fact-checked his speech and found it was littered with false claims.

Maybe he is a genius. Now Trump gives a speech crammed with lies & everyone gushes because he managed not to say anything overtly racist.

— Julian Sanchez (@normative) June 22, 2016

We’re playing the “rigged” drinking game. Haven’t been this blasted since the Nevada caucus. #TrumpSpeechpic.twitter.com/xZyOJK8b9V

— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) June 22, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 22, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage last summer, contentious debates over how states can protect the religious freedoms of businesses and organizations have been underway. States like Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia have been proposing religious liberty laws that have led to strong reactions on all sides of the aisle.

On Wednesday morning, after an impressive 39-hour filibuster, Republicans in the Missouri Senate voted to end the discussion on a bill that could allow religiously affiliated organizations to refuse to participate in activities that could be considered condoning or participating in same-sex marriage. The bill, Senate Joint Resolution 39, proposes an amendment to Article I of Missouri’s state constitution that would prohibit penalizing organizations for refusing services if they go against the organization’s religious beliefs.

Democratic Senators in Missouri used their filibuster to stall the bill from going to a vote while harping on topics “including other bills, Donald Trump, slick roads, soft drink ads in foreign countries, and ‘Jesus sightings’ in foreign objects,” an NPR affiliate reported. After Republican senators voted to end the filibuster, they subsequently voted in favor of placing the resolution on the ballot this November in a vote of 23-9. The bill still has to go to the house before the resolution can be placed on the upcoming ballot, at which point Missouri voters would decide on the amendment themselves.

Bills like SJR 39 have been popping up left and right across the country as local governments try to protect  people’s First Amendment right to religious freedom. But these bills have sparked a lot of controversies. Why? Many people claim that they are laws focused on discriminating against gay people, instead of protecting religious liberty as they claim.

Around a year ago, Indiana passed a law similar to the Missouri resolution that allows businesses to cite their adherence to religious beliefs as a defense in civil suits–allowing them to refuse service to particular people or groups if doing so violates their religious beliefs. One of the biggest concerns about Indiana’s law, in particular, is its vague wording and the ambiguous nature of its purpose. While Indiana Governor Mike Pence claimed that the bill was in no way about discrimination, it is really difficult to differentiate between the intention behind the bill and its impact until you can see how it plays out in practice.

Celebrities have been jumping to defend gay marriage in comedic videos poking fun of religious freedom laws and tweets supporting the movement to prevent sexuality-based discrimination.

If you really and truly want pizza for your gay wedding in Indiana… We will make it for you. @donald_faison pic.twitter.com/y91qIkVoyt

— Zach Braff (@zachbraff) April 3, 2015

And, of course, what would a discussion of policy be without acknowledging its impact on the current presidential race. Candidates are using these religious freedom laws as talking points to entice voters, especially those on the right of our political spectrum. After Indiana’s law passed but similar bills were shut down in other states, Ted Cruz said:

On my first day of office, I will instruct the Department of Justice and the IRS and every federal agency that the persecution of religious liberty ends today

Yes, it’s tempting to want to stand up for religious freedom in our country, especially when that freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, but when the fiercest and most frequent claims of persecution come from middle-aged, white catholic men, it kind of confuses the issue.

Is baking a pizza for a gay wedding really the crux of an American war on religion? Probably not. Should we be watching out for religious minorities to protect their ability to coexist in our complex religious landscape? Definitely. Is enacting bills to protect a cake baker from cake baking for gay couples really the hard hitting way to protect the minority religions that are actually being persecuted? Almost definitively not.

Let’s follow in the footsteps of West Virginia, who voted down a religious liberties bill after backlash claiming that it was discriminatory. And Georgia, who dismissed a bill when their Republican governor acknowledged it to be unnecessary for protecting religious freedom. It’s time to to support government action that–while standing up for freedom of religion and beliefs–ultimately upholds protection from discrimination for all of our citizens.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Time to Talk About Religious Liberty Laws appeared first on Law Street.

The ability to filibuster has long been an important tool for the United States Senate and some state legislative bodies. But some worry that it leads to unnecessary delay and a stop to productivity. Read on to learn about the development of the filibuster, its uses, and its abuses.

What is a filibuster?

In the Senate the general rule is that a Senator may speak for literally as long as he or she is physically able to do so.  When a Senator realizes that his or her position regarding a potential act of Congress is a minority one, the filibuster allows prolonging that debate indefinitely or using other dilatory tactics in order to prevent Congress from voting against that position.  Any bill can be subject to two potential filibusters. A filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill’s consideration, and a filibuster on the bill itself. The typical practical effect of this tactic is that Congress will usually move on to other business for expediency’s sake if a filibuster is threatened on a controversial bill. Filibustering is generally very difficult if the proposed action is not controversial.

However, a filibuster in the U.S. Senate can be defeated by a procedure called cloture. Cloture allows the Senate to end a debate about a proposed action if three-fifths of available Senators concur.  After cloture has been initiated, debate on that bill continues for an additional thirty hours with the following restrictions:

• No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.
• No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
• No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
• All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
• No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.

This process prevents filibustering from being used by a minimal number of Senators to obstruct bills that the vast majority of Congress wants to pass. However, cloture has drawbacks. It is difficult to implement because it often requires bipartisan support in order to get three-fifths of Senators to vote for it. It also takes time to implement because it must be ignored for a full day after it is presented. Finally, it requires a quorum call before voting so a large enough group of Senators can further delay voting by being absent so that a quorum is no longer present.

One of the most recent filibusters in the US Senate was conducted by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY):

Paul filibustered for nearly 13 hours, which is impressive. The longest Senate filibuster ever recorded was by Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for 24 hours and eighteen minutes.

What’s the argument for getting rid of filibusters?

Proponents of eliminating the Senate’s ability to filibuster argue that filibustering is childish and prevents proper resolution of disagreements about proposed bills. Filibustering allows belligerent legislators to seek acquiescence rather than compromise. When a filibuster is threatened, proponents of a bill may accept amendments to the bill that they do not favor in order to end debate. Even worse, double filibusters can make passing some bills much more time consuming. Moreover, filibusters can create dire consequences for bills that are proposed in time-sensitive circumstances e.g. when the fiscal budget is near expiration and voting is obstructed in order to advance policy interests.

What’s the argument for keeping the ability to filibuster?

Opponents of ending filibustering argue that the maneuver is necessary to preserve the fair representation and consideration of minority views. Without it, a simple majority could pass oppressive restrictions and hardship onto the minority and there would be no recourse against a duly passed law. The filibuster has been used to protect the rights of minorities in this country for a long time. The Senate was designed to ensure that the public’s representation in the decisionmaking process is not entirely controlled by the whims of the majority so that the power dynamic between majority and minority interests did not render the minority intrinsically powerless.

Recent Developments in Filibusters

In 2013, the power of the filibuster hit a road bump. The Senate voted to eliminate the possibility of using the filibuster on federal executive and judicial nominees (excluding Supreme Court nominees). This move was called the “nuclear option,” and it meant that it would just require a simple majority of Senators in order to move forward on confirmation votes. There were many Obama administration appointees stuck in a limbo because they could not get Senate approval.

168 filibusters of nominees in our history. HALF of them have occurred during Obama years! pic.twitter.com/xbQfsftLGm

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) November 21, 2013

While the nuclear option was an unprecedented change that will have real effect on the confirmation process for a long time to come, it only affects cloture and filibuster situations in that particular context.

Conclusion

The filibuster has, for many years, played an important role in the American legislative process. But in the United States’ current condition of hyper-partisanship, it may no longer make sense for the filibuster to hold such a strong pull. Filibustering was created to allow the minority to be able to speak on issues that they feel strongly about — but when does the minority abuse that power to take the majority hostage? The Democrats’ 2013 choice to invoke the “nuclear option” may end up being the first in many changes we see to the filibuster moving forward.

Resources

Primary 

Federalist Papers: No. 62

Additional

Fire Dog Lake: The Filibuster Should be Traded for Eliminating Lifetime Judicial Appointments

Moyers and Company: Larry Cohen on Eliminating the Filibuster

Think Progress: The Filibuster is Bad

Salon: 5 Reasons to Kill the Filibuster

American Prospect: Let’s Shutdown the Filibuster

American Prospect: Don’t Eliminate the Filibuster, Restore It

Real Clear Politics: The Filibuster is a Good Thing

Campaign for Liberty: Filibusters: Good For Restraining Government

Harvard Political Review: In Defense of the Filibuster

Washington Post: Talking Filibusters Are Good For Democracy

How Stuff Works: How a Filibuster Works

Daily Banter: Our Guide to the Filibuster: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Atlantic: If You’d Like a Good, Clean Explanation of the Filibuster Disaster

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Senate Filibuster: On Its Way Out? appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, lovelies. Did you all survive Thanksgiving? How many of you are still battling tryptophan-induced comas?

I know I am!

But all the Thanksgiving gluttony in the world couldn’t hold me back from you all. Nope. And I’ve got some worrying news to open your re-entrance into the world of normal portion sizes and stuffing withdrawal.

2016 is going to be a bitch.

Why? Well, because of a little “nuclear” reactor that was detonated just in time for my turkey to come out of the oven.

It did not look like this.

One week before Thanksgiving, Senator Harry Reid rallied together enough votes in the Senate to eliminate the minority party’s ability to filibuster executive branch nominees and any judgeship below the Supreme Court. What does that mean? Sen. Reid and the majority of his fellow Senators told the GOP to shut the fuck up and stop throwing tantrums already. Who can get anything done with these filibuster-happy, crazy people running around, making medically inadvisable speeches for gazillions of hours?

But actually. Filibustering hinders productivity. FACT.

Also fact: filibustering is sometimes necessary. If the majority party is set on passing some super fucked up legislation, the opposing side has to have some way to stand up and call bullshit. But here’s the problem with these two indisputable facts. Since President Obama was first elected in 2008, the Republicans have been abusing the filibuster.

Literally abusing it. Like, if the filibuster were a person, the GOP would be collectively doing time for assault and battery right now. So, Sen. Reid took the initiative. He got his fellow Senators together, and they stood up to the obnoxious, filibuster-abusing Republicans. And now they can’t filibuster anymore. Yay!

Except that the filibuster ban goes both ways. So, if the Republicans regain control of the Senate in the upcoming 2016 elections, we are in for a SHIT TON of trouble. Now, when I say we, who am I referring to exactly?

Women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, scientists, people who believe in the separation of Church and State, people who believe in reality. A lot of us, shall we say.

How come? Well that’s not hard to figure out. The Christian Right has made it abundantly clear that they’re out for blood. In a perfect world, they’d like to slash women’s access to safe abortions, slash access to healthcare for everyone but the obscenely wealthy, while turning a blind eye to racism, sexism, classism, global warming, and everything else that they’d like to pretend doesn’t exist. They’re also down for warmongering, merging Church and State, and basically turning the U.S. into an even bigger shit show than it already is.

We’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy.

As a lesbian, feminist writer who earns a portion of her living criticizing the government, I would really appreciate this not happening. I don’t want to live in a tyrannical theocracy. No thank you! But, with the demise of the ability to filibuster, come 2016, we could potentially go there.

Now, before we get too crazy, let’s look at the facts for a second. Sen. Reid’s “nuclear” decision didn’t ban all filibusters, everywhere, all the time. Only the ones that revolve around presidential nominees for executive or non-Supreme Court judicial positions. There’s still plenty of room to filibuster on both sides. For example, Ted Cruz’s filibuster of the Affordable Care Act would still be admissible. However, without the ability to filibuster presidential nominees, Congress’s majority party can potentially stack the courts with judges that align with their platform.

If 2016 brings a Republican majority, that means court-stacking à la Justice Antonin Scalia. This is the same guy who claimed that the separation of Church and State is a myth. That’s not a happy prospect. Justices like Hon. Scalia would strip women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, and non-Christians of their rights in a hot second, given the opportunity. And most of the folks on that list don’t have a ton of legal rights to begin with. As my immigrant, Polish, Jewish grandmother would say, oy vey.

But, since we have checks and balances, this is not the end of the world, right? The courts don’t rule the land with an iron fist. The judicial branch is just one arm in a complex tree of government. We’ve still got the legislative branch and the executive branch to even everything out.

Well, sort of. If the legislative and judicial branches are in each other’s pockets, there won’t be much checking or balancing going on there. The same can be said of the executive branch, which will also be up for grabs come 2016. Imagine a Christian Right president, elected alongside a conservative congressional majority, who will both work together to nominate conservative judiciaries.

It’s one possible outcome of 2016 elections, and it’s one where the whole checks and balances thing kind of becomes moot. Not to mention, even in a less-extreme situation, a highly conservative court hinders the legislative and executive branches’ abilities to make lasting reforms.

So, what have we learned about 2016?

Basically, that Sen. Reid’s decision to go nuclear prior to Turkey Day this year could have some serious consequences if the next election swings Right. So let’s jump on that Lefty-loosey bandwagon, mmkay? Keep those neocons at bay!

Featured image courtesy of [Center for American Progress Action Fund via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will We Live in a Tyrannical Theocracy by 2016? appeared first on Law Street.

In a recent speech at the Center for American Progress, Senator Harry Reid shared his belief that the use of the filibuster has become an abused and exploited status quo in the Senate. He stated, “I love the Senate. But right now, the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed.”

The reason is simple: since the mid 1900s, the filibuster has been abused as a powerful tool to halt legislation. Essentially, if a Senator does not like the legislation, the wrath of the filibuster is relinquished.

Just look at Congress’s approval ratings. You know there is problem when the so-called “Do Little Congress” of 1947-1948 passed more legislation than 112th & 113th Congresses. While some blame this on party polarization, which is partly true, it really boils down to is the abusive nature of the filibuster.

I think it is safe to say that the general public absolutely despises the filibuster. But the filibuster was once a strategic tool that improved the democratic process.

When the filibuster was used in the “unwritten constitution” during the 1850s, it was intended to function as a means to give the minority party a voice. Essentially, a senator would be able to stop a piece of legislation, discuss it, reform it, or get rid of it entirely. From 1800s to the early 1900s the filibuster was rarely used–only utilized in dire situations with significant legislation. One notable use of the filibuster took place in 1841 when Senator William King successfully filibustered Senator Henry Clay’s attempt to recharter the national bank. Yet when looking at the present, it is clear that use of the filibuster has changed significantly since its inception.

In the early 1970’s, the filibuster took a turn for the worst, when Senator Mike Mansfield and Senator Robert Byrd introduced a new legislative process that allowed the Senate to “multi-task” during a filibuster. It was contingent on the ability to work on two tracks: a senator can filibuster legislation on one track, while the Senate as a whole functions as usual on the other track. In theory, this would improve the efficiency of Congress. Instead, the ability to threaten a filibuster, sometimes referred to as a “silent filibuster” was born.

Since that drastic change to the senate legislative process, the filibuster has become a negative trend, resulting in an unproductive congress and a disgruntled American populace. This poses the question; where is the change?

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid expressed the necessity for reform, proposing that the Senate would change the rules to require a simple majority vote to advance executive nominees, contrasting with the current 60-vote threshold. This was expressed in his nuclear option, quoted in Politico. “This is a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change” Reid said at the Center for American Progress. Thanks for realizing this Senator Reid. It’s better late than never.

[Huffingtonpost] [Washingtonpost] [Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Martha Soukup via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filibusters: Past, Present, and Future appeared first on Law Street.

 Since the implementation of the “silent filibuster” (allows Senators to fiat the idea that they would speak for ever), filibusters have become a juggernaut tactic to halt legislation. Now, filibusters are used as jokes.

The reasoning is simple: Filibusters no longer serve as a means of discussing legislation.

 What the hell is our politics coming to when Senators feel it is acceptable to read a child’s book on the floor of the Senate?  The filibuster was once a strategic tool to discuss legislation and improve a proposed bill. Now, we have senators akin to Ted Cruz who find it appropriate to recite Green Eggs and Ham. I am positive Doctor Seuss would be as disgraced with our politicians as many of us our today.

 It is no mystery that the filibuster has lost its intended purpose. From the “Silent Filibuster” to Ted Cruz’s story time readings, the western model of government is losing credibility—it is a joke. But who are we to complain? After all, WE elected them into office (great job, Texas).

 All of the mockery put aside, how is it possible that  something as corrupt as the filibuster is constitutional? This brings up a particular question; is the filibuster even in the constitution?

 Nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly state anything about the filibuster, nor the act of filibustering. So does that mean it is unconstitutional? Aaron Burr, Vice President to John Adams, can be blamed for this confusion. As President of the Senate, Burr removed cloture, deeming it unnecessary, leaving an open spot for the filibuster in the “unwritten constitution”. Although it is not written verbatim in the Constitution, it has been adapted into our structure of government. This can also be seen in the emergence of a two party system as well as the cabinet.

If I recall, the Constitution does not directly include an Air Force, so does that mean the United States Air force is unconstitutional as well? The Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, which is why Article I, § 8, establishes that Congress has the power to “raise and support Armies”. So the answer is, yeah, the filibuster is constitutional; it’s just being exploited.

And if you think it couldn’t get any more corrupt, it does. In fact, this process was too strenuous; hence the birth of the Silent filibuster. Now, Senators simply fiat the idea of talking for infinity.  The way I see it, they should be required to put in some effort. The notion that one can halt an entire bill because they say they will talk forever is absurd.

Not only is Cruz giving a bad name for himself, he is tarnishing diplomacy, moreover the democratic process our nation prides itself upon. His political stunt is parallel to celebrity Miley Cyrus’s unwarranted gestures—a nation utterly embarrassed.

[ RawStory] [Newsdailynews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filibusters: Political Twerking appeared first on Law Street.

Sporting her pink sneakers, Sen. Wendy Davis spoke for over ten hours straight in her successful filibuster against a Texas abortion bill that would be one of the most restricting of its kind.

The bill would severely cut access to abortion clinics across Texas and make an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy illegal. Before the filibuster was carried out in its entirety, Davis’ speech was disqualified for going off topic three times. As the Dems. stalled, the crowd of opponents rose and chanted “Shame! Shame! Shame!” in a successful attempt at delaying the process. The efforts of the protesters and Davis’ 11 hour filibuster successfully stopped the bill for now.

Gov. Rick Perry has called for a second special session in order to pass the abortion bill. The session began July 1 at 2:00pm and could last a month. Though the bill is expected to pass the Republican-dominated legislature, Davis is confident that it is not over yet, now that the whole nation is paying attention.

[Full Article: New York Times]

Featured image courtesy of [The Texas Tribune via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Senator Wendy Davis Leads Successful Filibuster appeared first on Law Street.