The Long, Illustrious History of Filibusters (Refresher)

FoxNews ^ | Nov. 11, 2003 | AP

[FairOpinion]

Filibusters have a long and illustrious history.

The term, from a Dutch word meaning "pirate," became popular in the 1850s to describe efforts to control the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

Wilson wanted to get around senators who were filibustering his efforts to bring America into World War I, Baker said.

Lawmakers had used a 23-day, end-of-session filibuster to defeat his proposal to arm merchant ships, which led Wilson to say the "Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible."

[FairOpinion]

"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., angered by the Democrats' filibusters of several of President Bush's nominations of federal judges, has proposed reducing the number of senators needed to force a vote on a judicial nominee on a sliding scale. The number needed would drop by three votes after each successive cloture roll call until only 51 votes, or a simple majority, would be needed."

The House used to have the filibuster rule, but they eliminated it.

It's time to eliminate it in the Senate too.

[Mears]

Bump

[nwrep]

Careful, we may need it sometime in the future, against a rogue President (like Hillary), whose party would force a vote on a bill to legalize infanticide.

[Calpernia]

MoveOn.org has an entire section in their members area of their website teaching their followers how to filibuster.

[AndrewC]

Careful, we may need it sometime in the future, against a rogue President (like Hillary), whose party would force a vote on a bill to legalize infanticide.

Ummm, I hate to break it to you, but... federal judges already "legalized" infanticide.

[FairOpinion]

The whole idea of filibusters is to allow ONE or a very few people to thwart the will of the majority.

I don't think that was intended by our founding Fathers.

Note they only started to use it in the 1850-s.

[Paleo Conservative]

It's time to eliminate it in the Senate too.

If not for the filibuster rule in 1994, we would have Hillarycare today.

[Reynolds]

I remember that same argument about the line item veto. As I recall, the Republicans congress granted this under Clinton. It's a leap of faith that it won't be abused, of course, just like the filibuster IS being abused today.

We must get rid of this ridiculous practice and have faith in those elected. It's been ugly at times, but has served this country well from the beginning. We are the best led nation in the history of the world, in my opinion, even with the likes of Hillary Clinton and Trent Lott on the other end.

[punster]

I am not certain what the answer is.

I do know that filibustering is an obstruction to conducting Seante business, especially as practiced by:

1. Chuckie Schumerde, aka The Putz.

2. 'Lardbutt' Kennedy, aka The Swimmer.

[Defiant]

That's not true. Hillarycare was defeated in the Senate 98-0. I don't recall the GOP filibustering anything of Clinton's. They didn't give him a single vote on his tax increase, but they didn't filibuster it. After they got a majority, they delayed judicial hearings, but they didn't filibuster them--and I think the delay is wrong. There ought to be a time limit to Senate deliberations, then an up or down vote.

[b igguns]

The GOP filibustered multiple judicial appointments of Clinton's, and, notably, his economic stimulus package. I'm sure it would be easy to look up.

The longest filibuster on record is by a democrat. However, the democrat was Strom Thurmond filibustering the Civil Rights Act, so I think we can safely call this a conservative filibuster.

Filibusters are vile. I have never seen a well-reasoned defense of their use.

[Defiant]

The GOP never filibustered a nominee of Clinton's. You should look it up. They bottled them up in committee and delayed some of them, but did not filibuster.

Your equation of conservatism with opposition to the civil rights act is also misplaced. More GOP congressman supported the Civil Rights act than Democrats. Again, you should look it up. Those nasty Republicans were also the ones who freed the slaves, and passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Dems organized in opposition to the equality of blacks, and passed the Jim Crow laws in the south. Dems did that, not Republicans. You could blame Republicans for overlooking the South's peculiarities from the 1870s to 1960s, but to have done more would have required sending occupation Armies into the south, and the north just didn't have the will to do that.

Civil Rights were, and remain, a conservative value. Only a DUmmie would think otherwise.

As for the filibuster, I agree with you on that. I don't think it should be in the rules. Debate should have a time limit, and after that, there should be a vote. For legislation as well as nominees. Just because a small minority feel strongly about something does not mean they should hold up the democratic process. The GOP was in the minority most of the time from 1932 to 1994. What important victories did they achieve by means of the filibuster? If you answered "none", you win. The Dems trampled on the constitution and enacted the welfare state.

[Defiant]

One more thing: The GOP battled Clinton's economic plan by voting against it. They had a minority of around 47 or 48 Senators at the time, and, for once, 100 percent of them agreed on something: Clinton's plan of raising taxes and spending sucked. There were a couple Dims who agreed with the GOP, and without any GOP support, the plan could not pass. Clinton was very bitter that the GOP didn't support his plan, notwithstanding the fact that members of his own party didn't vote for it either.