What happened to actual filibusters?

[margotb822]

I understand the idea of needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but why do the Republicans just get to say that they're doing it without actually doing anything? What happened to the days of people standing on the floor and actively blocking legislation?

I think that's what America needs to see if they try to block health care. Right now it looks like Dems scrambling and in-fighting. People need to see that it's the Repubs that are keeping us from moving forward.

Why is this not an option?

[Fumesucker]

1. Democrats in Congress need a transplant..

[varelse]

2. Good question (nt)

[DaveinJapan]

3. Interesting question.

When did that go away, and why?

I agree, if they're going to do it they should be seen doing it.

[AndyA]

4. Democrats are letting the Republicans off easy by allowing the non-filibuster filibuster.

Just the mere threat of a filibuster seems to be the same as the actual act these days.

Harry Reid needs to FORCE to Republicans to actually perform the act. And while they're doing it, EVERY DEMOCRAT coast to coast needs to be on their local news explaining that as constituents die, the Republicans are taking steps to PREVENT loved ones and neighbors from having access to health care. And that they're doing it to PRESERVE PROFITS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WHO ARE CAMPAIGN DONORS.

If you don't think that would be a PR nightmare for the GOP, think again.

[wroberts189]

12. "the mere threat of a filibuster seems to be the same"

you are 100% correct and it seems to be a big scam on all of us.


Make them filibuster!

[rucky]

5. It cuts into their naptime.

[Walk away]

6. All I hear is Senators talking about "How hard they worked" on..

hammering out whatever bill passes for reform today. The last time I heard someone in Washington crowing about working so hard, it was George W. Bush. These people don't know what work and effort is. That's for the rest of us who pay their salaries and but their health benefits for them. A filibuster would kill them.

[adamuu]

7. Make them actually filibuster

Make it painful. Make America watch.

[wroberts189]

11. +1

[JBoy]

16. +2

[adamuu]

21. I emailed these sentiments to Harry Reid

Don't think he'll actually do it, but he should know some people see the bluff.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. It's been supplanted by the "procedural filibuster."

It's a way to do nothing and pretend the opposition is stopping you. Both parties, by mutual agreement, use it.




The Senate Majority Leader can still require an actual filibuster, though.

[wroberts189]

9. They did not need 60 when bush was in.....

And when was the last time you heard of a Dem filibuster ?

We threatened one once and they said ... we will take away that option from you.

Then this gang of 6..or was it 8 ...said we wont take it away ...just confirm these SP judges. Lie-berman led the charge.

Dems. said ... sounds great! Brooklyn bridge for a penny .. sounds good to us! We will never use it and you can have all the wingnut judges you want.

Then we gave them solid majorities.. they could easily play the same game... but no ...we need this mythological bipartisanship.

Suddenly 51 became 60 ... without no one actually trying to pull a FB off. The threat of it is now taken as a certainty.

Kabuki theater.

[happyslug]

10. No one is willing to do what LBJ did in 1964 to get the Civil Rights Act Passed

That is REFUSE to permit anything else to be considered by the Senate. Force the people who are doing the Filibuster to SHOW they are still talking about the Bill (Remember that is what the Filibuster is, it the defeat of the Motion to stop debate on a bill, until that motion passes the bill can NOT come up to a vote). President Johnson had pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act through the House, then the bill went to the Senate. At that time you needed 67 votes to end debate (it was changed to 60 votes in the early 1970s) so the Motion to end debate was defeated over and over again. The President Pro Temp (Remember this is 1964, we had no Vice President) kept bring it up for vote and when defeated continued the debate. Nothing else was done by the Senate for all the Senators had to be present for any roll call vote. Quite literally the Government Shut down. Nothing was passed, and I mean NOTHING (The Budget had already been passed so not a problem at that time). Officers in the Military saw their promotions delayed (The Senate MUST approve ALL Regular Military Commissions and Promotions), No Judges were Confirmed (The Senate was tied up in the Filibuster), Any one else who was subject to Senate Confirmation could be confirmed (Your local federal attorney for example) in addition to any new laws being passed. It was a complete shut down for 57 days. LBJ pulled all the stop to defeat that Filibuster, finally getting the 67 votes to end debate.

The problem is NO ONE on EITHER side of this debate what to have that happen again, so the Senate as soon as a "Filibuster" is mentioned goes on to other matters, unlike the situation in 1964

For more on the Passage of the Civil Rights Act:
http://www.senate.gov/vtour/civright.htm

Filibusters in General:
http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=227


A little paper that points out the 1864 Civil Rights Act lead directly to Reagan and Bush:
http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/faculty/documents/...

[onenote]

20. what got the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed was a compromise

engineered by Everett Dirksen, the repub leader, and Democratic leaders like Humphrey and Mansfield. The only reason it was possible to get cloture was that the bill was changed enough to get Dirksen to back it and he brought along enough repubs to get to cloture.

That is explained quite clearly in the senate document linked in the OP.

[happyslug]

23. But it was LBJ who conjured Dirksen into agreeing to the terms

AND it still took 57 DAYS, in most cases that would have been sufficient to Killed the Civil Rights Act, but President Johnson was willing to put EVERYTHING on hold till it was passed. I do NOT want to downplay Dirksen's role, but Dirksen would NEVER had that opportunity unless LBJ and the Senate leadership were NOT willing leave the Act die in the Senate AND such a decision meant to tie up the Senate for 83 days (57 days of the actual filibuster, 83 days from the start of the actual floor debate). LBJ knew what he was doing, and sacrificed Democratic Domination of the Federal Government to achieve it, that was the price Dirksen demanded, but it was price LBJ and his fellow Democrats were willing to pay.

[unblock]

13. filibuster is a generic term for any stall tactic, and the methods evolve with the senate's rules

senate rule 22, enacted in 1975, reduced the number needed for cloture from 67 to 60, but also let senators simply assert that unlimited debate would happen unless a cloture vote was won by those trying to end the filibuster.

in other words, actually taking the floor and halting ALL senate business didn't need to happen any more; instead, a filibustering senator could prevent just that one opposed bill from being voted on, while other senate business could continue.

the grand filibuster, where all senate business is halted by marathon "debate" is still possible but has been obsolete ever since.

[Statistical]

14. Reid allows them to.

Reid could demand an actual filibuster. He has the authority and senate bylaws allow it.
He simply chooses each time to not exercise that authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillibuster#Procedural_fil...

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster where no floor speech and no quorum is required may, therefore, be more powerful than an actual filibuster, which would require attendance by a quorum of Senators as well as the physical presence of the Senators speaking.

Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they only need to indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.

The majority leader's inability to apply consequences to filibuster has only encouraged an explosion of procedural (non debating) filibusters.



Likely this explosion will grow larger and larger and larger until a new Majority leader demands debating filibuster at which point there becomes consequences for being the party of No and we see this graph crash.

[kentuck]

15. The filibuster is going on right now.

It would make them look even more weaker if they brought it up to a vote and it lost. They know they don't have the sixty votes. The filibuster is happening.

[margotb822]

18. The point is

to make the Repubs work to prevent the vote from being brought to the floor. The "filibuster by agreement" makes the Dems look weaker than they are. The nation needs to see the obstructionism in action.

[jtrockville]

17. Another question: will the 60 vote rule stay in effect if R's

ever re-gain a simple majority in the senate?

[unhappycamper]

19. Fuck it.

Let's send them phone books so they have plenty to read. I want to watch the filibuster 24/7 on C-SPAN.

[adamuu]

22. Exactly! n/t

[Are_grits_groceries]

24. here is some info:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...