I searched “standing filibuster” and got only vague results.
How it works (the classic version)
A senator is recognized on the floor of the United States Senate
They must keep talking—no sitting, no breaks
If they stop speaking or leave, the filibuster ends
The goal is to run out the clock or force concessions
Famous examples
Strom Thurmond spoke for 24 hours, 18 minutes in 1957 (still the record)
Senators would read phone books, recipes, or long documents just to keep going
How it works today (very different)
Modern Senate rules allow a “silent” filibuster:
No one has to stand or talk
Just signaling intent triggers the need for 60 votes (cloture) to end debate
Result: most filibusters happen without speeches
Why people argue about bringing it back
Supporters say:
Forces real debate
Raises the political cost of obstruction
Makes obstruction visible to the public
Opponents say:
It’s theatrical, not substantive
Could paralyze the Senate even more
Favors senators with fewer physical limitations
i could be wrong, not the parliamentarian or an expert on Robert’s Rules of Order, but i think it’s just the old—Mr. Smith goes to Washington—style filibuster. it apparently can still be done as a substitute for the stupid and unconstitutional (imho) 60 vote cloture rule. the filibusterer can be a member of the majority too. when they give way, i guess Thune can choose to have a simple, old school, majority vote on the bill.
Mr Smith Goes to Washington. It starred James Stewart.
Sounds like Stand And Deliver
Each Senator can oppose the bill but must argue from the floor. The catch is, a Senator an only take the floor twice every 24 hours. Since there are about 48 Rat Senators, EACH Rat Senator would need to take the floor for an hour each day (on average) to prevent the bill from going forward. The Rats have enough people to do this, but do they have the will.