3 ms·

Yeah, I've been wondering if it will amount to anything as well. My gut tells me that it won't. That said, I've had it running for around and hour and have fou

Yeah, I've been wondering if it will amount to anything as well. My gut tells me that it won't. That said, I've had it running for around and hour and have found it interesting for no other reason than understanding how filibusters actually work. From what I can tell, he has just been spending time reading articles critical of drone strikes or reading other documents while providing commentary on them as he goes. He's even been taking time to eat a snack which provides comedic pauses in the listening experiences. Rand also gets small breaks from others who come forward to ask questions - most of which seem to be staged to help him cover additional points, reiterate his already made points, or just generally use up more clock. Based on the view behind him, it appears that all other senators need not be present while he speaks. Is that true and has this always been the case? I'd imagine that the tactic might be more compelling and useful if everyone had to sit there and listen.

twoodfin 14y ago
I'm unfamiliar with the specific rules of Senate decorum, but no, I don't think any other Senators except whoever's presiding are required to be present. Senators would get very little done if they had to sit in the Senate Chamber any time any one of them had something he or she wanted to say. They're all pretty garrulous.
- unclenoriega 14y ago
  This is true. The Senate assumes a quorum is present unless someone suggests the absence of a quorum, so as long as there's a designated president, they're good to go. There are several YouTube videos of pro forma sessions where just the presiding senator and staff are present.
hkmurakami 14y ago
Lawrence Lessig provides a great description of how our representatives "rush in" in time to vote and then rush out immediately to make more phone calls to solicit contributions. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
lmkg 14y ago
The important thing to understanding filibusters is that they're a dirty, dirty hack. They were never really intended to be part of the legislative process, they're just some enterprising senators noticing and exploiting some loopholes in the senate's debate rules. While the House puts some limits on debates, to move things along, the Senate is a more deliberative body (by design) and therefore doesn't vote on an issue until it has been completely debated. There is no strict definition of "completely debated" beyond "someone still has something to say." As any half-awake hacker no doubt will notice, this means that you can prevent a law from getting voted on, and therefore passing, by simply not ending the debate. This is what a filibuster is. There are technically some restrictions around debate, and the band-aid fix that a supermajority vote can stop debate and bring a vote, but that's about the only thing stopping it in practice. The main technical restriction is that, if the Senate doesn't have anything else to do, any one Senator only gets one monologue. They can't stop one day, and then filibuster again the next day. This rule can be stretched, but not broken. Hence, the content of most filibusters tend to be long space-fillers, which is what you're seeing. There's also a rule that the debate must be 'on topic,' but that's too vaguely defined to be worth anything. Famously, one Senator said something to the effect of "this law is not in the interests of my constituents, who are as follows:" and then proceed to literally read the phone book for a few hours.
- logn 14y ago
  Filibuster the way it's used today is a dirty hack. But Sen. Paul is actually using it legitimately by standing and debating/speaking instead of just declaring 'I filibuster' and going home (implying that he would speak forever but doesn't need to since it's merely a formality). It's actually the most refreshing political action I've seen in a while. They're talking through the night, live now: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ He vows to speak as long as he's physically able.
- stevesearer 14y ago
  It's funny that you mention the space-fillers because Senator Ted Cruz is currently reading tweets that are supportive of Rand's filibuster.
- 14y ago

twoodfin 14y ago

I'm unfamiliar with the specific rules of Senate decorum, but no, I don't think any other Senators except whoever's presiding are required to be present. Senators would get very little done if they had to sit in the Senate Chamber any time any one of them had something he or she wanted to say. They're all pretty garrulous.

unclenoriega 14y ago
This is true. The Senate assumes a quorum is present unless someone suggests the absence of a quorum, so as long as there's a designated president, they're good to go. There are several YouTube videos of pro forma sessions where just the presiding senator and staff are present.

hkmurakami 14y ago

Lawrence Lessig provides a great description of how our representatives "rush in" in time to vote and then rush out immediately to make more phone calls to solicit contributions. http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...

lmkg 14y ago

The important thing to understanding filibusters is that they're a dirty, dirty hack. They were never really intended to be part of the legislative process, they're just some enterprising senators noticing and exploiting some loopholes in the senate's debate rules. While the House puts some limits on debates, to move things along, the Senate is a more deliberative body (by design) and therefore doesn't vote on an issue until it has been completely debated. There is no strict definition of "completely debated" beyond "someone still has something to say." As any half-awake hacker no doubt will notice, this means that you can prevent a law from getting voted on, and therefore passing, by simply not ending the debate. This is what a filibuster is. There are technically some restrictions around debate, and the band-aid fix that a supermajority vote can stop debate and bring a vote, but that's about the only thing stopping it in practice. The main technical restriction is that, if the Senate doesn't have anything else to do, any one Senator only gets one monologue. They can't stop one day, and then filibuster again the next day. This rule can be stretched, but not broken. Hence, the content of most filibusters tend to be long space-fillers, which is what you're seeing. There's also a rule that the debate must be 'on topic,' but that's too vaguely defined to be worth anything. Famously, one Senator said something to the effect of "this law is not in the interests of my constituents, who are as follows:" and then proceed to literally read the phone book for a few hours.

logn 14y ago
Filibuster the way it's used today is a dirty hack. But Sen. Paul is actually using it legitimately by standing and debating/speaking instead of just declaring 'I filibuster' and going home (implying that he would speak forever but doesn't need to since it's merely a formality). It's actually the most refreshing political action I've seen in a while. They're talking through the night, live now: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/ He vows to speak as long as he's physically able.
stevesearer 14y ago
It's funny that you mention the space-fillers because Senator Ted Cruz is currently reading tweets that are supportive of Rand's filibuster.
14y ago