I am confused about the “senate rule”. To me it seems that the rule is there so that the senators will not be inconvenienced, kind of like the “symbolic” hunger strike that was held recently by the college kids who were allowed to eat if they got hungry.
Wasn’t the original intent of the filibuster to make the senators so uncomfortable that they would use it as a last resort? I know nobody wants to talk for hours and hours on end, and nobody wants to listen to it, but if they forced a real one, instead of this symbolic b.s., I don’t think we would see it bantered about so often. Also, in the case of a real one, the senators could just wait until the person talking had to go to the bathroom or passed out from exhaustion and immediately call a vote.
It seems to me that this is “senate rule” is just a snow job on the American people so that nobody has to own uncomfortable legislation, and so that each side can use these issues as a way to raise money. They can exempt themselves and we continue to suffer.
Please advise. Am I wrong?
The filibuster is an outgrowth of something akin to free speech in a legislature, unlimited debate. The limit on unlimited debate that we are familiar with dates to 1917 as a part of Progressive Era reforms. The original threshold for limiting debate was 67 votes instead of today’s 60 votes.
From Wiki:
"After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in the early 1970s 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 majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.
In 1975, the Democratic-controlled Senate[10] revised the cloture rule so that three-fifths of sworn senators could limit debate, except on votes to change Senate rules, which required a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture. The Senate also experimented with a rule that removed the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster (a "talking filibuster"), thus allowing for "virtual filibusters".
Another tactic, the post-cloture filibuster—which used points of order to delay legislation because they were not counted as part of the limited time allowed for debate—was rendered ineffective by a rule change in 1979."
Nope. They actually prefer the Court take the blame for most of their agenda.
Freepers have been wondering since the beginning why they don't require an actual filibuster. They both want to reserve powers not remembering what Harry did when he needed to.