Filibusters DO NOT work like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

[TheWraith]

I wanted to repeat this once again, because I keep seeing over and over here people claiming that the Republicans have never filibustered anything, or that the Democrats haven't made them "really" filibuster it because there hasn't been reading from the phone book.

Let's be clear about something: filibusters do not work that way. They haven't worked that way in more than four decades. In fact, the rules were specifically changed to PREVENT those sorts of stunts from holding up bills.

A filibuster, today, means not getting 60 votes for a procedural motion, usually to invoke cloture and proceed to the vote. If you don't get the 60, the bill is under filibuster. That's it. No one has to hold the floor. The Senate doesn't have to remain in session. No all-nighters are needed.

It was done this way after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, to specifically prevent individual Senators or small groups from being able to derail the business of the entire chamber by requiring a minimum number of votes to filibuster--currently, 41.

Unfortunately, far too many people--including here--still rely on Hollywood movies for their education about things like this, even when those movies are so woefully out of date that they've become anachronisms.

[GodlessBiker]

1. They should, but they don't.

[ebayfool]

2. Yup - & I see the fallacy repeated by people that really should know better!

Now, if they want to work to get that changed - they should do so. But rants about make 'em stand there and read from a phone book are pointless.

Glad you posted this - I thought about it when I saw it going on yesterday. And just didn't have the energy to blow. Some days people just seem to wanna scream and facts be damned.

[TheWraith]

6. Unfortunately, too many people everywhere have an "outsider" perspective.

They don't know the actual, inner mechanics of how either politics or campaigns work, rather than what it looks like from the outside.

[msongs]

3. strategies may have changed but the outcome is still the same....roadblocks nt

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Seriously, thank you. It's tiresome to see the misunderstanding perpetrated here.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

[TheKentuckian]

5. That is our fault for not changing the rules at the start of either of the last two sessions

Instead we have had three straight records set. Clearly, whining about the TeaPubliKlans isn't going to work, perhaps a move toward "anachronism" would be more beneficial than crying, pointing fingers, and failing while the people go under and the wealthy pile onto their dragon's hoards.

[TheWraith]

7. Not changing them before the most recent session was the right call, actually.

Because the 60 vote margin is currently working FOR us. Nothing particularly good is going to come out of (or pass through) the House this term, so we're better off taking advantage of the 60 vote margins in the Senate to kill the bad shit that they're throwing at us.

Now, if we can get back the House next year, and give ourselves a bit more margin in the Senate, then we'll be in business.

[moondust]

8. Mitch shakes his head, Congress shuts down.

Legislatin' is hard werk I tells ya!

:crazy:

[TheWraith]

9. Pretty much the case, unfortunately.

The current filibuster rules were created to be able to keep a small sub-minority of the Senate from stopping business, such as with the civil rights bills. But they weren't designed with the possibility in mind of an entire party attempting to do the same thing in order to stop ALL legislation.

[Laelth]

10. Ultimately, the current system is better.

One Senator, alone, can not now shut down the Senate. It takes 41 to do it. Still slow. Still irritating. But better.

-Laelth

[Bonobo]

11. You are pretending that you know more than you do, I suspect.

While your post is true insofar as it addresses one aspect of filibusters, it ignores the larger issue of filibusters, cloture, the nuclear option and other procedures in the senate.

One cannot really speak of the filibuster without also addressing the options that are available to the Senate majority to overcome the filibuster threat.

Also, it should be understood that there is also an element of a "gentleman's agreement" on the part of the Senators that if they don't get 60 votes for cloture than it is politely assumed that a "talking out" filibuster (which, yes, IS the kind of "measure portrayed in "Mr. Smith") has taken place even when it has not.

Your OP does not adequately address the issues involved, so either do more studying and write a better OP or stop trying to muddy the waters, Mr. Wraith.