Law student Steve Barnett has a manageable and eye-opening history of the filibuster, as well as current law surrounding its use on certain subjects. Forget that it was racist legislators who utilized the filibuster most effectively, to block civil rights legislation; and forget that the earliest filibuster landed the national capital in “a humid swamp now known as Washington, D.C.,” where I have the misfortune of living now. Read the whole thing, but especially see this section on the “nuclear option”:
First, a Senator would allow for an extended debate and then raise a point of order with the Presiding Officer (currently Vice President Cheney), stating the debate is dilatory and a vote should take place within a designated time frame. Unless the Presiding Officer refers the point of order to the Senate, there is no debating it. Thus, the Presiding Officer would rule in favor of the point of order, ending the debate at the specified time. The minority party could appeal the ruling, but then the majority could respond with a motion to table the appeal. The motion to table the appeal is non-debatable and passed with only a simple majority. Senator Byrd (D-WV) used this “nuclear option� twice (1977 and 1980) to change the rules, and one time it was precisely to avoid a filibuster. [my emphasis]
As Steve says, the “unprecedented” claim for the nuclear option is “only true in a very technical sense.” And filibusters aren’t ubiquitous:
There are already 26 laws on the books that eliminate the possibility of filibusters in certain areas of national security, national defense, energy policy, environmental policy, federal budget, international trade, and arms control. So, by my lights, the only way one can claim that the Republican’s nuclear option would be unprecedented is that it hasn’t been applied to judicial nominatee decisions yet.
He still doesn’t like the Republicans’ political machinations to deploy the nuclear option, but he thinks it will spur filibuster reform, including “reasonable time limits” on debate – so the minority party can make its point without plugging up government indefinitely – and this: “Eliminating the two-track system [where multiple bills can be considered at once] might also be effective because filibusters would have a higher political cost since they would hold up the entire Senate calendar.” Sadly these eminently intelligent proposals will probably be lost in the political shouting match and confined to obscure legal journals.
I’m a tech journalist who’s making a TV show about a college newspaper.