Filibuster: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Summary

This video script humorously critiques the U.S. Senate's use of the filibuster as a legislative obstacle. Using satire and pop culture references, the script highlights how the filibuster, originally intended to foster debate, has become a tool of obstruction that prevents meaningful legislation. The speaker critiques the historical and modern use of the filibuster, noting its role in blocking progress on key issues like civil rights and healthcare. The tone is comedic yet insightful, ultimately advocating for reform or abolition of the filibuster to make the Senate more functional and capable of addressing the country's challenges.

Takeaways

• 😀 The filibuster, often romanticized in popular culture, is actually a major tool of obstruction in the U.S. Senate.
• 😀 The filibuster is not part of the Constitution, and its current form was not envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
• 😀 Historically, the filibuster was used to block civil rights legislation, particularly by Southern senators, including Strom Thurmond's infamous 24-hour filibuster.
• 😀 Modern filibusters no longer require senators to speak for hours; now, they only need to signal their intent, making it a more efficient but equally obstructive tool.
• 😀 While the filibuster was originally meant to encourage debate, it is now primarily used to prevent legislation from passing, even if there is bipartisan support.
• 😀 The argument that the filibuster protects minority rights is misleading, as it has often been used by political minorities to suppress the rights of racial minorities.
• 😀 Filibuster usage has skyrocketed in recent years, with a notable increase in cloture votes (the mechanism to end filibusters) under President Obama's administration.
• 😀 Some political figures, including Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and even Donald Trump, have called for the elimination of the filibuster, despite its controversial nature.
• 😀 Abolishing the filibuster could make it easier for the majority party to push through legislation, but it also risks giving more power to those you disagree with when they are in power.
• 😀 The filibuster is criticized for making the Senate ineffective, preventing important issues like immigration and climate change from being addressed through legislation.
• 😀 The speaker argues that reforming or abolishing the filibuster is a risky but necessary step to improve the Senate’s ability to function and address the nation's problems.

Q & A

What is the filibuster and how has it been used in the U.S. Senate?

The filibuster is a legislative tactic used to block a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote, often by extending debate indefinitely. In modern times, it is typically used to prevent legislation from passing unless a supermajority of 60 votes is achieved, making it a tool of obstruction rather than debate.

How has the filibuster evolved from its original purpose?

Originally, the filibuster was designed to encourage debate and allow minority voices to be heard. However, over time it has become a tool for obstruction, often used to prevent legislation, especially on controversial issues like civil rights, from passing.

What is the historical significance of the filibuster in blocking civil rights legislation?

The filibuster has been used by Southern senators to block civil rights legislation, notably by Strom Thurmond who used it to prevent the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from passing. The filibuster was an important tool in obstructing efforts to protect the rights of racial minorities.

How did the filibuster affect the passage of major social programs?

The filibuster has hindered the passage of many major social programs, as it requires a supermajority of 60 votes to overcome it. This has led to the failure of initiatives such as gun control laws, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the public option in Obamacare, despite some bipartisan support.

What was the original intention behind the creation of the filibuster in the Senate?

The filibuster was not part of the original design of the Senate but evolved later, with the intention of encouraging debate and protecting minority views. However, it was not intended to create a supermajority requirement for legislation, a feature that emerged much later.

Why do some people defend the filibuster as a necessary part of Senate procedure?

Some defenders argue that the filibuster allows for extended debate and ensures that minority opinions are heard and considered. They claim it is a critical safeguard to prevent the majority from imposing policies without thorough discussion.

What was the impact of the 1970s Senate reform on filibuster practices?

In the 1970s, Senate reforms eliminated the requirement for actual talking filibusters, making it easier for senators to signal their intent to filibuster without speaking on the floor. This change reduced the dramatic endurance aspect of the filibuster but also made it more commonly used as a tool for obstruction.

What are some of the criticisms of the filibuster's effect on the Senate?

Critics argue that the filibuster has turned the Senate into a dysfunctional body, where obstruction is prioritized over progress. The filibuster has made it increasingly difficult to pass important legislation, and the Senate's gridlock often leads to issues being addressed by other branches of government instead.

What risks are involved in abolishing the filibuster?

Abolishing the filibuster could make it easier for major legislation to pass, including policies from the opposing party when they are in power. While this might make legislative processes more efficient, it could also result in undesirable policies being enacted more easily, creating long-term risks.

How has the use of the filibuster increased over time?

The use of the filibuster has skyrocketed in recent decades. During Eisenhower's presidency, there were only two cloture votes (to end a filibuster), but under Obama, there were 506. This dramatic increase reflects the growing partisan divide and the greater reliance on the filibuster to block legislation.