Fillibusted!

Tuesday marked an incredibly important day in politics. Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy’s former seat in the Senate. It was not incredible just because it marked one of, if not the biggest upset in political history, but it also probably kills healthcare reform.

What makes this interesting is that even though 59 Senators would vote for healthcare reform, it won’t be enough. A huge majority in the Senate is no longer enough to pass legislation because of the filibuster rule.

Ironically, the term “filibuster” is derived from the Dutch term vrijbuiter (pirate) and the Spanish term filibustero (freebooting). The first filibuster was used on March 5, 1841 over the issue of firing Senate printers. Since then, it has been used as a way to extend debate, and recently, to kill bills.

My view on this is simple: Congress should do-away with the filibuster completely.

Simply put, filibusters are being abused and misused so badly that they do not solve the problem they were intended to rectify. Filibusters were and are used for the purpose of allowing full debate on a bill. However, they are now also being used to essentially defeat bills with a minority. When filibusters are used, speakers read the Constitution, phone books, oyster recipes and other “pieces of literature” that are clearly unrelated to the bill being debated.

Filibusters are also being used much more frequently now than ever before. During and before the ‘60s, filibusters were invoked for only 8 percent of legislation. Since Democrats took a majority of the house in 2006, Republicans have used filibusters for more than 70 percent of legislation. The 110th Congress (elected in 2008) has used the filibuster 62 times, the most for any Congress ever.

I’m just not sure why we allow our country to be run by a super majority instead of a simple majority. It’s not what our founding fathers wanted nor is it what they intended. The rule of the law is and should be that a simple majority has the right to pass legislation without technical impediments. And make no mistake about it — a filibuster is a technicality that derails legislation purported by a majority of Congress.

Likewise, the rationale for having a filibuster is absurd too. Supporters of the filibuster suggest it is a necessary check against a persecuting majority. But frankly, if there is a majority in Congress, especially if it is coupled with a cooperative president, the ruling partisans have a mandate to try their ideas out, at least until the next election. In the case of the current Senate, if Americans didn’t want a liberal agenda, then they would have voted for Republicans.

So what should Democrats do now? The reality is that healthcare is probably dead. Democrats should change the rules for filibuster use. One option is that they can change the threshold for how many votes are needed to override a filibuster. This was done in 1949. In 1949, cloture (ending a filibuster) was changed from having a threshold of a two-thirds majority to a three-fifths majority (67 to 60 votes).

But the Senate should outright rid itself of filibusters. They can do this by employing what’s called a nuclear option. This would take a simple-majority vote to rule that the filibuster is unconstitutional, thus ending the filibuster policy.

Look, at the end of the day, healthcare reform is going to die because 59 Senators are not enough to pass legislation. There is something inherently wrong with this. We’re not a country of super-majorities, technicalities, or a country that reads oyster recipes to delay crucial legislation.

Jack Melamed is a sophomore in Newcomb-Tulane College. He can be reached for comment at jmelamed@tulane.edu.