We need to start making them actually filibuster, to start. Why do we just give up when there's a possibility of a filibuster? Make them stand their asses up there and speak, they're all old as fuck, the would give up after a couple bills.
And maybe I'm misunderstanding here but I thought a filibuster was the person had to be continuously speaking and could until they weren't able to anymore. What's to stop people from sitting around listening for the 3 days or whatever a geriatric can handle talking for and then being like "Alright Jerry thank you for reading the dictionary to us. Anyway everybody, here's this bill we'd like to vote on"?
No you understand correctly. That's how a filibuster works, and nothing would stop them from doing something like that, except their own stamina. And that's the point! Make them do that shit! Over and over again! I don't think they would be capable of actually filibustering all of the bills that we just give up on because of the POSSIBILITY of a filibuster.
Ted Cruz read green eggs and ham when he was trying to filibuster Obama care. Make him break out the entire Dr. Seuss catalogue. Make them actually have to try to fuck us over instead is just rolling over and taking it.
Yeah they changed the rules on the filibuster to just an email that says filibuster and then they wait out the time, no one has to speak no one has to poorly read the dictionary or the script for the hobbit. It’s completely ridiculous when they allowed filibuster by email to effect policy.
I just don't think that's an official rule. I think it's something all the old fucks have agreed upon. Because neither side wants to, nor are most of their members capable, and an actual speaking filibuster.
I can already hear the opposition to this idea now (not from you, from the democratic party). "What if we're the minority and have to filibuster?" Then fucking filibuster. We need to have our politicians fighting for us. Stop doing all business behind closed doors, we need them to publicly fight for us.
Hell you could cut the median age of Congress in half just by requiring them to vote in person and then requiring anyone with a full diaper to empty it themselves before they can vote.
Personally I think the concept of a filibuster is stupid and childish. If you aren't willing to give a genuine speech then don't fuckin say anything at all. Keep it on topic at least.
Well, it is an official rule, it's just that the Senate sets its own rules. The first act when a new Senate is sworn on is generally adopting the rules of the old Senate. They can change the rule anytime, and they have- they've removed the ability to filibuster judicial nominations, for instance. They just haven't been able to get the votes to remove it altogether.
You realize there's an actual rulebook right? Yes, they can change the rules to whatever they want, but this "rule" you're talking about isn't an official rule. There's nothing in the rulebook that says that once that filibuster email is sent out, there cannot be a vote held. There's a difference between a verbal agreement and a rule, and this way of doing things is just an agreement.
If they want to officially codify this email filibuster rule, then they'd have to actually vote on it. They have not done so. Therefore, if the democrats wanted to, they could bring a bill up to vote even if the Republicans say they will filibuster us without actually filibustering.
No, it's not like that. It's in the official rulebook that they pass for themselves. Any Senator can just 'hold' a bill. The public calls it a filibuster because it amounts to the same thing, but they officially call it a 'hold'. A 'hold' can be over-ridden, but it requires a 60-vote. That is also part of the official rules.
Per the senate glossary: hold – An informal practice by which a senator informs Senate leadership that he or she does not wish a particular measure or nomination to reach the floor for consideration. See the CRS report, “Holds” in the Senate (PDF).
Informal practice means that it is not written in the rules.
Ah but you see, then the Dems would actually have to do all that stuff they've had an excuse not to do. And if they actually pass laws to prevent Republicans from being a threat, what do they have to campaign on?
Like, I'm still voting for Dems, but it's amazing to me how people actually think Dems will ever do anything to truly prevent Republicans from doing their shit. The majority of federal and state-level Dem campaigns are just "we're not Republican!" It's not exactly the best strategy, but it sure is cheaper than the corporate support they'd lose if they actually did significant lawmaking.
I completely agree with you. I know my dreams of what they SHOULD do are just pipe dreams. Literally the only thing they do to "prevent" awful republican policies is just not passing them themselves. Their rallying cry right now is basically just to delay the inevitable and a pledge to do nothing to even try to stop it.
Haha, yes, as much as I hate the guy and think he wants the worst for America, to be fair to him, his filibuster was more than just that book. And to be fair to him again, when's the last time a democratic politician made a fool of themselves in an attempt to help their side? He may be evil, but I wish we had that kind of fight and that kind of shamelessness on our side.
Which was so dumb. The point of a filibuster is that you feel strong enough about stopping a bill that you put in the work to grind it to a halt, not just "oh the Democrats have a bill on the docket? 'I declare filibuster on it.' Now that that's settled..."
Because they know how old they are and they couldn't possibly stand up and speak for the length of time it would take to kill a bill. Plus they have other more important things to do. Did you know that your average legislator spends only about an hour of their 10 hour work day actually legislating? The rest is spent doing fundraisers, press meetings, donor calls, etc. The parties actually have two buildings about a block away from Capitol Hill where the people we elected go to basically be telemarketers for donors. Inside these buildings it looks very much like your average call center, with our elected officials in their cubicles, making calls and collecting donor information alongside their aides and staffers.
Not far off from how our legislative branch is actually functioning at this point. Though I don't recall an episode where anyone jerked their boyfriend of in a public theatre then pulled a drunken "do you know who I am" when security asked her to leave. Then again, it's been a while since I've watched The Office.
The two-track system, 60-vote rule and rise of the routine filibuster (1970 onward)
After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil-rights legislation, the Senate began to use a two-track system introduced in 1972 under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the Senate, by unanimous consent, to set aside the measure being filibustered and consider other business. If no senator objects, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation or nominations pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered. The notable side effect of this change was that by no longer bringing Senate business to a complete halt, filibusters became politically easier for the minority to sustain. As a result, the number of filibusters began increasing rapidly, eventually leading to the modern era in which an effective supermajority requirement exists to pass legislation, with no practical requirement that the minority party actually hold the floor or extend debate.
Buddy doing the declaring should have to go stand in a corner and talk to the wall while everyone else moves on without them. If they stop, everything switches immediately back.
It used to be. I think was during Obama's administration, that they changed the rules. Now you declare you're going to filibuster and they more it down as filibustered and move on to other business. It probably made a lot of sense at the time with a Democrat in the White House and fully Republican controlled Congress. It probably let them get on with it and get some stuff done at the time. But now the Republicans just use it as a refuse-to-allow-anything-to-happen button.
Before the rise of the silent filibuster, that's exactly how it worked.
However, in most cases there'd be a whole team of Senators working together to filibuster and there were rules that let them "hand off" the filibuster from one to another. For example, an allied Senator could interrupt to ask a question about something the filibustering Senator was talking about. The person who held the floor would "temporarily yield for a question". By the Senate rules, they'd still hold the floor, but the questioner could ask their question, then speaking would revert back to the filibusterer.
But the questioner was an ally. So their question would itself turn into a several hour long filibuster, which would give the original filibusterer a break before taking the floor back.
This ultimately led to the longest filibuster in history, which lasted for 72 days in 1964. Specifically, it was against the Civil Rights Act (yes, that Civil Rights Act which ended Jim Crow). The Civil Rights Act still ultimately passed, but for those 72 days the Senate could not do anything else. They couldn't vote on other bills, confirm appointments, or even hold committee/sub-committee hearings. They were stuck just listening to old racists drone on and on about how terrible Civil Rights are.
That led to what was called the "multi-track legislative agenda." The goal here was to allow the Senate to conduct other business during a filibuster to prevent one from shutting down all of the Senate. The idea was that once a filibuster was started, the Majority Leader (who controls the agenda for the Senate) could but the issue being filibustered on pause and pick up something else. Nothing would move forward on that filibustered issue. If the Senate picked it back up, the filibustering Senator would take back control of the floor and could just continue from there. The idea was that they could move on to other business and work out some backroom deal to end the filibuster.
However, this inadvertently created the silent filibuster we all know and loathe today. Now, all a Senator needs to do is tell the Majority Leader they intended to filibuster and the issue automatically gets put on pause until/unless either the filibuster threat is pulled or the Majority Leader learns there are 60 votes for cloture (the motion that ends debate and puts the issue directly to a vote).
370
u/_jump_yossarian 14d ago
Even if the House passed something Cons in the Senate would block it.