Filibustering: Obstruction In The Senate

In deciding the books “Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate” and “Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S.” for review, the central topic to consider for discussion quite literally hits us over the head via the book titles. But to be thorough (tedious) I shall mention it more blatantly: The topic for this review discussion is the concept of Filibustering. The opportunity and method to filibuster is what gives the US Senate an interesting twist to its proceedings. The right of senators to singly or in a group, speak for an unlimited time unless opponents can secure sixty votes, also known as a super-majority, to impose cloture is preserved in the chamber's traditions and practices. In a way the US Senate presents its observers with a contradiction in terms. It is a strong and influential legislative chamber, whose …show more content…
Are Senate majorities unable to secure their agendas due to obstruction by the minority, thus rendering the Senate an anti-majoritarian institution? Why are minority rights not exploited even more fully than they are? Why did the Senate move to adopt a formal rule limiting debate in 1917, and what have been the implications of that reform? These are the primary questions to which Wawro and Schickler offer answers in their book. The authors employ close historical analysis of key debates as well as both conceptual models and statistical models to help explain the theory, practice and continuity of obstruction in the Senate. They have gathered corresponding evidence to support the contention that Senate procedure remains so loosely regulated because its members manage to accomplish just enough to prevent the formation of a majority willing to pay the costs of cracking down on obstruction. (Gould 2006, Moscardelli