Decades or centuries from now, historians will gasp in wonder at how the U.S. government employed technicalities to prevent the passage of bills and or to block “recess appointments” in the early 21st Century.  I’ll make that prediction, based on our eventual historical success thwarting absurd pronouncements such as the Dred Scott decision or resolutions of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

The consequences of nominal Senate filibusters or the blocking of Presidential recess appointments by pretending that Congress is in session may not rise (or fall) to the same level as these dark moments in American history, but they subvert reasonable discourse to the same degree. History will certainly shed rational light on this.

In the case of the filibuster, still protected in the Senate, legislators may declare a debate in progress without actually debating.  I imagine myself attempting this strategy with my wife, as she pressed me to debate how we will spend our summer vacation.

Hold that thought, honey, while I find something better to do.

What? You want to keep discussing this?  Sorry, I put up the “filibuster” sign.

I don’t have to listen to you anymore.

Somehow I don’t see her buying the pretense that I am actually talking to her, while I switch on the football game or go to the store.  Yet U.S. Senators accept this absurd premise, because they don’t want to undermine the influence of the minority party.  It’s one thing to silence a minority Senator who wants to talk, but quite another to prevent discussion by merely raising the “Filibuster” sign.

Historians of the future will certainly scratch their heads to imagine debates being held without anyone actually talking. Or perhaps they will have a good laugh and invent “filibuster jokes” to satirize our era. “Two Senators walk into a bar. The senior member says ‘You’re buying today.’ The junior Senator pulls out his ‘filibuster’ card. ‘O.k.,’ says the other, ‘ I’ll have a bourbon and water without the bourbon.'”

The recent Court of Appeals decision to block recess appointments on the grounds that Congress was actually in session if anyone stepped into the chamber and turned on the lights, follows a similar logic of the filibuster. You don’t have to actually conduct business to be in session, you just need a junior representative to stop by and say “Anybody here?” This image conjures a scene from an Ionesco play, where one character debates with himself on irrelevant subjects.

Me: So, do you think the Redskins should have played RG III against Seattle?

Me: Who’s RG III?

It’s hard to take Congress seriously when they stoop to pro forma arguments using performances which really did not happen. If a Congress-person claims to speak without speaking or speaks to an empty chamber, was legislation actually considered?  If God was the witness to these events, God probably had to suppress a laugh.

History will certainly be laughing some day in the future, when sanity returns. In 2013 it is just plain pathetic.