You are here > Home > News Columns HOME > NEWSPAPER COLUMNS> Fiddling with the Filibuster
|
Yeshua Born in Bethlehem | Filibuster |
Self-Serving Public Officials VS Public Service | |||||||
Published by The Post Newspaper Published: January 7, 2026 | |||||||||
 In 2024 the voters rejected the policies of the Biden Administration giving Donald Trump a second term and the opportunity to accomplish multiple goals. Among them were to secure the border, hem in out-of-control inflation, and in the current president’s words “Make America Great Again.”Trump, learning from his first term, didn’t let any moss grow under his feet, taking decisive actions quickly; so quickly and in such abundance that many, including the legacy media, had difficulty keeping track of them all. In response, the establishment – some would call them the deep state – went to court in an effort to stop him or at least slow him down from keeping the promises he made to the American voters. The Filibuster: But this wasn’t limited to judicial action. In the U.S. Senate Democrat senators blocked legislation under the chamber’s filibuster rules – where most legislation must clear a sixty-vote threshold in order to even be considered. Still in place is the requirement for a majority vote (50%+1) for passage but without 60 votes measures are subject to a filibuster which results in tying up the chamber. There are exceptions to the sixty-vote requirement such as judicial nominations and budget reconciliation measures. The latter was used to pass the “Big Beautiful Bill” making the ‘Trump-45” tax breaks permanent. Some have called for the elimination of the filibuster entirely. Changing this rule would only require 51 votes, something currently within the power of our Republican-controlled Senate. We oppose doing so. But there are alternatives. History: Prior to 1917 the Senate had no way of closing off debate and forcing a vote on a measure. That year the senate changed its rules to allow a two-thirds vote to cut off debate (cloture). In 1975 the senate reduced that number to three-fifths of duly chosen and sworn members. Originally, a filibuster was a physical act. To stall a vote, a member had to be on the floor of the chamber talking until his voice gave out. If he wanted to stop the majority, he had to do it in person. Today any senator can simply object and freeze a bill indefinitely, without even setting foot in the chamber. A threat delivered through staff brings all action to a sudden stop. Possible Reforms:  Reinstate the “Present and Voting” requirement. This would make members come to the floor and it would let voters see who is obstructing the legislative process. It would also show many obstructionist senators are unprepared to speak on complex issues. Additionally, the most vulnerable members would be less likely to be present. For the last thirty years obstructionist members haven’t been held to account. Without consequences it’s easy to obstruct. This needs to change! Update
the filibuster rule to include requiring at least three-fifths (60%) of the chamber to vote in the affirmative in order to change the filibuster rule in the future. This would keep the Democrats from using the “nuclear option” in order to pack the supreme court or enact term limits on the court’s justices because of SCOTUS’ decisions they disagree with. Lower number required to invoke cloture:
Additionally, along with updating the requirement for future changes to the filibuster rule and requiring members to be present and voting one could lower the number of members needed to cut off debate to fifty-five. That would cut off much of the obstructionist activities we are currently witnessing while maintaining protections for a determine minority – which will not always be Democrats. A Less Desirable Alternative:
Under the current rules, senators wanting to filibuster are given two opportunities to speak for as long as they want within any “legislative day.” One senator suggested calling the Democrat’s bluff and allow them to speak while extending the “legislative day” until they have used up all their resources. This would stall legislative action in the Senate but it would, in the long run (excuse the double entendre), allow measures to be considered on the floor of the chamber. This alternative is less desirable because if the Democrats again gain control of the Senate, they will certainly eliminate the filibuster entirely and take extreme actions that may well endanger the life, liberty, and freedom of all Americans.
|
| About the Authors and Columnists |  2026 Bill and Mansius have written over 300 guest columnsr and editorials together over the last ten years for numerous publications across the country and they continue to do so. Bill lives in Texas and Mark in Utah. Both gentlemen ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary for Texas Congressional District 14. Since then they have become close friends and colleagues. In addition to formerly being responsible for overseeing elections in Galveston County as Galveston's Chief Deputy Clerk for Elections, Bill has worked with the Texas State Legislature to improve and craft election legislation. |
| |||||
Comment from a former Chief of Staff for a Member of Congress: