task0778
Diamond Member
The filibuster was never established by a specific act, and it is not included in the Constitution. The Constitution delegates internal rule-setting to the Senate itself, and for much of its history, the chamber did not implement a mechanism to maneuver around a member determined enough to block action by mounting a filibuster.
It took until 1917, when the Senate voted to empower a supermajority of 67 to cut off a filibuster and move on to other business, using a motion known as "cloture." Then, in 1975, the Senate voted to lower the supermajority to its current number, 60, and to make the calculation based on total members of the Senate rather than just those present and voting, which increased the burdens on the majority and lessened them on the minority.
Another change from the 1970s has had a major impact in how the filibuster is used today. Historically, a filibuster — the talking kind — would halt all business on the Senate floor until the parties were able to resolve their differences or one party backed down. To avoid having important legislation held hostage to a filibuster, Senate leaders decided they would acknowledge the filibuster, by stopping work on that bill but simply moving on to other business that wasn’t as controversial.
This shift to a two-track system was intended to be constructive: It limited the damage that a filibuster could cause for the rest of the legislative agenda. But it had an unintended consequence — it became easy to filibuster, since the tiring work of talking a bill to death was no longer needed. Instead, all a minority had to do was say they were blocking a bill; that would essentially be enough to stop the bill in its tracks.
Hence the idea of returning to a talking filibuster, which is an attempt to counterbalance the incentives that currently encourage aggressive use of the filibuster, by assessing more "pain" on a minority that seeks to filibuster. BUT - there some problems/issues with that idea.
Under a talking filibuster, "filibustering senators must stay on the floor and continue to speak or a vote can be called," said Steven Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis. What advocates of the talking filibuster want is to "wear down filibustering senators," which would make filibusters less common, and possibly easier for the majority to overcome, Smith said.
The idea, Binder said, "is to recreate the ‘wars of attrition’ that often characterized filibusters in the Senate many decades ago. If you want your side to prevail, you need to be the last team standing, having worn down the other side so that they fold and give up the floor."
That may happen — but the change would also entail other consequences, some of them difficult for the majority to swallow.
First, the Senate would effectively be giving up the current two-track system, meaning that a filibuster would now block every other bit of floor business that the Senate majority wants to take up.
Second, the talking filibuster would also impose hassles on the majority, not just the minority.
During a talking filibuster, members of the majority would be forced to stay close to the floor, even at odd hours of the night, because if the majority’s numbers were to drop low enough, the minority could request a quorum call to determine whether there are enough senators present to continue with the chamber’s business. If no quorum is mustered, the minority doesn’t have to keep talking, and they can catch up on their rest.
With today’s 50-member Democratic majority, "if one Democratic senator had to leave for any reason, the Republicans could call for a quorum, disappear, and Senate business would conclude for the day," Ryan said.
The last time a talking filibuster was tried in a serious way, Smith said, was in 1987, during consideration of a campaign-finance bill.
"A tag team of opponents successfully held the floor during the period," Smith said. "Seven cloture votes failed during the period. In the meantime, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., had to maintain a quorum. He struggled to do this until his side realized that they had to move to other legislation."
www.politifact.com
Further:
While the common perception of the filibuster is a lone senator holding the floor for as long as they (and their bladder) can hold out, it's actually not in the Senate rules that only one senator can speak during a filibuster. According to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report on Rule 19, which governs filibusters:
"Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question. It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that 'no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.' This provision, commonly called the two-speech rule, limits each Senator to making two speeches per day, however long each speech may be, on each debatable question the Senate considers. A Senator who has made two speeches on a single question becomes ineligible to be recognized for another speech on the same question on the same day."
Then finally, there's this: Once the talking filibuster is over, Democrats would still need 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote. (Unless, of course, they change the legislative filibuster rules to allow cloture to be invoked by a simple majority.) So yes, a talking filibuster would force much more of a logistical imposition on the senators who participated in it. But a few hoarse voiced and tired senators aside, it wouldn't actually change much of anything.
www.cnn.com
Bottom line: I don't think Manchin, Sinema, and maybe a few other Dem senators will support the end of the Cloture vote or changing it to a simple majority, or change Rule 19 above. There is and will be enormous pressure on them to cave; it remains to be seen if they will do so. I do believe that those of us on the Right or Independents should recognize that there ARE Democrats with a sense of honor, duty, and Integrity that requires them to stick to their principles and follow their conscience in our best interests instead of their party.
AND: the Left should remember that whatever changes they make will also be adopted by the GOP when they take back the Senate, and that WILL happen sooner or later. My guess is sooner, but that's another discussion.
It took until 1917, when the Senate voted to empower a supermajority of 67 to cut off a filibuster and move on to other business, using a motion known as "cloture." Then, in 1975, the Senate voted to lower the supermajority to its current number, 60, and to make the calculation based on total members of the Senate rather than just those present and voting, which increased the burdens on the majority and lessened them on the minority.
Another change from the 1970s has had a major impact in how the filibuster is used today. Historically, a filibuster — the talking kind — would halt all business on the Senate floor until the parties were able to resolve their differences or one party backed down. To avoid having important legislation held hostage to a filibuster, Senate leaders decided they would acknowledge the filibuster, by stopping work on that bill but simply moving on to other business that wasn’t as controversial.
This shift to a two-track system was intended to be constructive: It limited the damage that a filibuster could cause for the rest of the legislative agenda. But it had an unintended consequence — it became easy to filibuster, since the tiring work of talking a bill to death was no longer needed. Instead, all a minority had to do was say they were blocking a bill; that would essentially be enough to stop the bill in its tracks.
Hence the idea of returning to a talking filibuster, which is an attempt to counterbalance the incentives that currently encourage aggressive use of the filibuster, by assessing more "pain" on a minority that seeks to filibuster. BUT - there some problems/issues with that idea.
Under a talking filibuster, "filibustering senators must stay on the floor and continue to speak or a vote can be called," said Steven Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis. What advocates of the talking filibuster want is to "wear down filibustering senators," which would make filibusters less common, and possibly easier for the majority to overcome, Smith said.
The idea, Binder said, "is to recreate the ‘wars of attrition’ that often characterized filibusters in the Senate many decades ago. If you want your side to prevail, you need to be the last team standing, having worn down the other side so that they fold and give up the floor."
That may happen — but the change would also entail other consequences, some of them difficult for the majority to swallow.
First, the Senate would effectively be giving up the current two-track system, meaning that a filibuster would now block every other bit of floor business that the Senate majority wants to take up.
Second, the talking filibuster would also impose hassles on the majority, not just the minority.
During a talking filibuster, members of the majority would be forced to stay close to the floor, even at odd hours of the night, because if the majority’s numbers were to drop low enough, the minority could request a quorum call to determine whether there are enough senators present to continue with the chamber’s business. If no quorum is mustered, the minority doesn’t have to keep talking, and they can catch up on their rest.
With today’s 50-member Democratic majority, "if one Democratic senator had to leave for any reason, the Republicans could call for a quorum, disappear, and Senate business would conclude for the day," Ryan said.
The last time a talking filibuster was tried in a serious way, Smith said, was in 1987, during consideration of a campaign-finance bill.
"A tag team of opponents successfully held the floor during the period," Smith said. "Seven cloture votes failed during the period. In the meantime, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., had to maintain a quorum. He struggled to do this until his side realized that they had to move to other legislation."
PolitiFact - Would a ‘talking filibuster’ get the Senate moving?
Democrats are nursing a razor-thin majority in the Senate, and they’ve increasingly blamed the filibuster — /> <meta name=
www.politifact.com
Further:
While the common perception of the filibuster is a lone senator holding the floor for as long as they (and their bladder) can hold out, it's actually not in the Senate rules that only one senator can speak during a filibuster. According to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report on Rule 19, which governs filibusters:
"Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question. It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that 'no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.' This provision, commonly called the two-speech rule, limits each Senator to making two speeches per day, however long each speech may be, on each debatable question the Senate considers. A Senator who has made two speeches on a single question becomes ineligible to be recognized for another speech on the same question on the same day."
Then finally, there's this: Once the talking filibuster is over, Democrats would still need 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote. (Unless, of course, they change the legislative filibuster rules to allow cloture to be invoked by a simple majority.) So yes, a talking filibuster would force much more of a logistical imposition on the senators who participated in it. But a few hoarse voiced and tired senators aside, it wouldn't actually change much of anything.
Analysis: A 'talking filibuster' isn't going to solve the Senate's problems
President Joe Biden threw his significant political weight this week behind an effort to reform the Senate's filibuster process, telling ABC's George Stephanopoulos that "you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days. You had to stand up and command the...
www.cnn.com
Bottom line: I don't think Manchin, Sinema, and maybe a few other Dem senators will support the end of the Cloture vote or changing it to a simple majority, or change Rule 19 above. There is and will be enormous pressure on them to cave; it remains to be seen if they will do so. I do believe that those of us on the Right or Independents should recognize that there ARE Democrats with a sense of honor, duty, and Integrity that requires them to stick to their principles and follow their conscience in our best interests instead of their party.
AND: the Left should remember that whatever changes they make will also be adopted by the GOP when they take back the Senate, and that WILL happen sooner or later. My guess is sooner, but that's another discussion.
Last edited:
