5 ms·

The one person performing a filibuster is presumably doing so very much on record, complete with soundbites.

yamtaddle 3y ago
That's not the kind anyone means anymore, at least when it comes up in relation to the US Senate. They generally don't actually filibuster, they place a procedural hold that requires 60 members to agree to override it.
- lumost 3y ago
  This is where the insanity really started. It used to require 8-20 senators to physically filibuster to actually kill a bill. On a major bill, the small number of senators also risked reputational harm from the sound bites of them reading their phone books. Now anyone can start a filibuster, it largely goes unrecorded - and pressure for party unity prevents it from being killed.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    So it sounds like it's an even smaller minority rule now?
    - lumost 3y ago
      You could have a single senator block the entire senate from delivering anything. The only back stop on this is whether a party would kick out a miss behaving senator or primary them.
      - lazide 3y ago
        Eh kinda - it’s that way because everyone wants the rules to be that way. A large enough majority can just change the rules. It isn’t that hard to actually do. But they prefer it this way.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      Yep, during the Obama administration, Sen. Ted Cruz famously shut down the government for awhile, nearly by himself, pissing everybody on both sides off, except for the small number of people who vote in Republican primaries, who ate it up.
      - listenallyall 3y ago
        In an effort to provide balance, I'll point out that months before Cruz's stunt, Wendy Davis, a Texas state senator, filibustered for about 11 hours to prevent a vote on an abortion bill. > people who vote in Republican primaries, who ate it up. To the best of my knowledge nobody made a movie about Cruz's speech. Davis's speech, on the other hand, became the subject of a documentary debuting at SXSW: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2022/03/09/documentary-chronicling-wendy-davis--13-hour-filibuster-to-premier-at-sxsw https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2022/03/09/docu...
        sanderjd 3y ago
        I honestly don't understand what point you're making.
dataangel 3y ago
Yes but you have that be the person in the safest seat.
sp332 3y ago
Not since 1972. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/filibuster-joe-biden-senate-60-votes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/filibuster-joe-biden...
rpearl 3y ago
No, fillibusters are a matter of procedure now. Nobody's standing up there talking to perform a fillibuster anymore. From https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/filibustering-in-the-modern-senate https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/filibustering-in-the-mod... "When a Senator signals the intent to filibuster, an informal cloture process starts to determine if 60 votes exist to move a measure forward in two ways. One cloture vote is to approve a motion to consider a measure; the second vote is on the actual measure. If either cloture vote fails, the measure remains in limbo. "
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  If you want to see a real filibuster in action, go to Nebraska! Machaela Cavanaugh has been filibustering the legislature for weeks! 12+ hours a day, weeks on end. She has monumentally impressive resolve. Actually, I think you missed it. The Nebraska legislature finally passed a bill today.
  - eek2121 3y ago
    That is great and all, but what folks are communicating here is quite different. Filibusters in the Senate do not require you to even show up, you can simply claim a filibuster to stop a vote from happening.
sanderjd 3y ago
You don't deserve to be downvoted for just not knowing that this isn't how the filibuster works anymore. All the well known pop culture treatments of it - Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The West Wing, etc. - show this form of it.

That's not the kind anyone means anymore, at least when it comes up in relation to the US Senate. They generally don't actually filibuster, they place a procedural hold that requires 60 members to agree to override it.

lumost 3y ago
This is where the insanity really started. It used to require 8-20 senators to physically filibuster to actually kill a bill. On a major bill, the small number of senators also risked reputational harm from the sound bites of them reading their phone books. Now anyone can start a filibuster, it largely goes unrecorded - and pressure for party unity prevents it from being killed.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  So it sounds like it's an even smaller minority rule now?
  - lumost 3y ago
    You could have a single senator block the entire senate from delivering anything. The only back stop on this is whether a party would kick out a miss behaving senator or primary them.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Eh kinda - it’s that way because everyone wants the rules to be that way. A large enough majority can just change the rules. It isn’t that hard to actually do. But they prefer it this way.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    Yep, during the Obama administration, Sen. Ted Cruz famously shut down the government for awhile, nearly by himself, pissing everybody on both sides off, except for the small number of people who vote in Republican primaries, who ate it up.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      In an effort to provide balance, I'll point out that months before Cruz's stunt, Wendy Davis, a Texas state senator, filibustered for about 11 hours to prevent a vote on an abortion bill. > people who vote in Republican primaries, who ate it up. To the best of my knowledge nobody made a movie about Cruz's speech. Davis's speech, on the other hand, became the subject of a documentary debuting at SXSW: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2022/03/09/documentary-chronicling-wendy-davis--13-hour-filibuster-to-premier-at-sxsw https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/news/2022/03/09/docu...
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        I honestly don't understand what point you're making.

dataangel 3y ago

Yes but you have that be the person in the safest seat.

sp332 3y ago

Not since 1972. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/filibuster-joe-biden-senate-60-votes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/filibuster-joe-biden...

rpearl 3y ago

No, fillibusters are a matter of procedure now. Nobody's standing up there talking to perform a fillibuster anymore. From https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/filibustering-in-the-modern-senate https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/filibustering-in-the-mod... "When a Senator signals the intent to filibuster, an informal cloture process starts to determine if 60 votes exist to move a measure forward in two ways. One cloture vote is to approve a motion to consider a measure; the second vote is on the actual measure. If either cloture vote fails, the measure remains in limbo. "

Kon-Peki 3y ago
If you want to see a real filibuster in action, go to Nebraska! Machaela Cavanaugh has been filibustering the legislature for weeks! 12+ hours a day, weeks on end. She has monumentally impressive resolve. Actually, I think you missed it. The Nebraska legislature finally passed a bill today.
- eek2121 3y ago
  That is great and all, but what folks are communicating here is quite different. Filibusters in the Senate do not require you to even show up, you can simply claim a filibuster to stop a vote from happening.

sanderjd 3y ago

You don't deserve to be downvoted for just not knowing that this isn't how the filibuster works anymore. All the well known pop culture treatments of it - Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The West Wing, etc. - show this form of it.