Why are we not having congressional hearings on the filibuster?
This poorly defined senate procedure has been obstructing good public policy for decades. The public deserves an airing of what is actually happening here.
What’s happening is corporate policy is being passed by majority vote while public policy is defeated by minority vote. It’s an absolute outrage, because it’s clearly illegal yet accepted as normal procedure, even by our favorite liberal senator, Mr. Bernie Sanders.
This video of the senator, fielding a filibuster question, demonstrates the typical confusion people are having when trying to understand and describe the filibuster.
The question is, “can we reform the filibuster?” The answer is, “We don’t have the votes”.
The questioner assumes that extended speech and majority rule are somehow the same filibuster topic. That’s what everybody thinks, apparently, but it’s not true. Majority rule and the filibuster are linked only by deception and intentional misinterpretation. A rule change to require sixty votes to proceed should not be called a filibuster. That’s like calling running a red light, speeding. It’s not the same.
Both men agree they would get rid of it, without properly defining what “it” is. If it’s not defined exactly, it can’t be corrected. And that’s why we need congressional hearings on the filibuster.
Legislation is supposed to pass by majority vote. Any senate rule that violates that majority vote intention is unconstitutional.
A cloture vote to proceed is an oxymoron.
Listen to the senator closely. He says “We should get rid of the filibuster AND restore majority rule”. That’s because they’re two distinctly different topics. Extended speech does not prevent majority rule, requiring a supermajority to proceed, does. Everybody needs to understand that distinction if the public is to ever transcend this so-called sixty-vote threshold “filibuster” “rule”.
The senate filibuster is merely the word they are using to refer to the unwritten rule change that now requires sixty votes to proceed to a majority vote. They didn’t change any rules, they just interpret them differently now, for minority rule.
The minority can prevent majority rule. That’s not a democracy.
The “filibuster” is a violation by misinterpretation and the senator should be having hearings on it, to prove it. If the senate doesn’t correct the problem, the senator should take them to court.
So yes, Senator Sanders, you are very mistaken, as pontificated in the video. It’s not about getting senate votes, it’s about the senate breaking the law. The filibuster, which is actually a rule change, is a crime against the constitution and should be declared as such by everyone, including the high court, to help restore our democracy to majority rule.