Relevant to the question asked in this thread, the reason is that the organizing resolution that changes the committees over is subject to the filibuster, so if there’s not some agreement reached quickly, the filibuster is going to have to be nuked (in whole or in part) very soon.
Because of that, I’ll go with January 28th, 2021. (There’s no issue more likely to get Joe Manchin on board for changing the filibuster than his own precious chairmanship being filibustered.)
This. Someone was asking in a Twitter thread a couple days ago why it seemed that Mitch McConnell was in charge, no matter which party controlled the Senate. And this was basically my answer. For instance, the voting rights act that the Dems want to pass, can’t be passed via reconciliation. Manchin and Sinema are going to have to decide which is more important, the filibuster or voting rights.
I’m hardly a fan of Schumer’s leadership. But given that for any erosion of the filibuster, however small, he needs all 50 Dem votes, including filibuster fans Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein too IIRC, he’s got limited options and he’s for once doing the best he can. He’s already told Mitch that Mitch’s proposed deal - Mitch would allow the organizing resolution to go through, in return for a pledge by the Dems to retain the filibuster - is unacceptable, and he’s rejecting it.
Which brings me back to the OP. I expect that sometime next week, all 50 Dems will be up for carving out one more small exception to the filibuster, for the organizing resolution of course. That would still leave the filibuster broadly intact.
But if Schumer’s smart, he’ll talk his small coterie of filibuster fans into further limited exceptions, like exempting legislation to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments (13, 14, 15). This would provide a window for voting rights legislation, and also legislation to ban participants in the January 6 insurrection from ever holding public office.
I’m going to go with December 20, 2017. That’s when the Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, by virtue of ignoring the rules. No, a bill that increases the deficit and stops increasing the deficit only when it sunsets is not a bill that decreases the deficit.
I really wish the filibuster did not die but went back to the original version of it.
A senator could take the floor and talk as long as he/she could stand. No breaks. Presumably you could have others you could get to swap places with but a quorum had to be maintained 24/7 while the filibuster happened.
These jokers today have nowhere near the stamina or conviction to do such things. They have cocktail party fundraisers to attend. But if something is REALLY important it does give a minority party a chance to stop something they find egregious.
They could go back to this as an option. That it is not on the table is telling (see: cocktail parties).
If that’s your standard you can go back to the Bush tax cuts, which did the same thing.
The Senate has never had a requirement that a quorum be maintained throughout a filibuster – once a quorum is established, it is assumed to be in place. So already you’re not “going back to the original version” if you make this a requirement. Doing so would take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And absent that, Senators are free to go to all of those cocktail parties.
And this wouldn’t work because if a measure is being filibustered, that means that there are 41 Senator who support the filibuster (the number necessary to block cloture). There would be no problem setting up a rotation of Senators to “ask questions” for hours on end to give the filibustering Senator a break. Honestly, you’d probably have more of a fight among filibustering Senators over who gets to go first and hog more camera time in holding forth on why the offending measure must be stopped.
And this particularly wouldn’t hurt Republicans because they have no legislative agenda. While the filibuster is ongoing, the Senate cannot vote on nominations, pass budget reconciliation, or take up any other measure. And that would be just fine for Republicans.
So count me among those who think that requiring “old school” filibusters would be ineffective as a deterrent to their use. For almost all Senators, the thought that they may have to expound at length on a controversial topic on national television isn’t a threat – it’s a dream come true.
How do they decide who has to be present for a quorum?
And why can’t the opposing party keep issuing quorum calls to keep the chamber filled?
A quorum is 51 Senators, any 51 will due.
A quorum call may only be requested when another Senator does not hold the floor. The filibustering Senator would be holding the floor.
Ok.
So, 49 dems say piss off and 51 reps have to sit there?
What if 49 reps say piss off…not going?
How do they decide who MUST show for a quorum call? How long do they have to sit there?
I think it would have done exactly as much good as filibustering Gorsuch.
To the OP, due to people like Manchin, I do not think that the filibuster will be killed by Democrats. The next time that Republicans are in power, it will be one of the first things that they do.
Since the Republicans will obstruct the Democrats, and then blame the failure to address the issues that they obstruct on them, I expect them to retake the senate in 2022.
So my prediction for the date that the filibuster is ended is January 21st, 2023.
A quorum is assumed unless proven otherwise. It doesn’t matter if there’s nobody else in the chamber but the speaking Senator. And once the filibuster is in motion, the only Senator who could request a quorum call to establish the absence of a quorum is the filibustering Senator.
I think you’re misunderstanding:
If I were Senator-X I would continually call for a quorum and make them sit there.
Maybe I would wait a bit to let them get across town only to have them yanked back.
Why wouldn’t the filibustering senator not want to enforce a quorum? Kinda seems the point.
And then the question remains…who has to respond?
By asking for a quorum call, you yield the floor. Filibuster over.
And even if that were not the case, if the filibustering senator called for a quorum call, and there was not a quorum present, it wouldn’t force the senators to come back, it would end the filibuster.
The only ones who would be “forced” to come back would be the ones on your side that support the filibuster.
Well…going back to what started this…a filibuster I would like to see…make the rules such that a quorum must be maintained at all times.
These are all just senate rules. They can set it up as they like. Currently the filibuster is a joke…because of their own rules. So I am suggesting keeping a filibuster with more stringent rules. I think there is a place for that.
But if not then fine…dumpster the whole thing. As it stands it is terrible.
That’s not the point at all. The point is to eat up precious floor time so that the majority gives up and moves on to more pressing business.
The point of the filibuster isn’t to force senators to sit in their seats, it is to prevent legislation from being passed.
Now, you may have an interesting idea in there somewhere. If the senate made up a new rule that said that a filibuster ends if there are not at least 40% of the elected senators present, then that would force pretty much the entire minority party to stay, while allowing the majority party to go do other things.
I don’t know if that would fly, but it would at least make the minority party have to work for it.
TOTALLY the point. We saw a do nothing senate for the last four years. They are in no rush to do anything. What they really would NOT like is being made to sit in the senate chamber for hours on end while someone reads the D.C phonebook.
Taking a week longer to pass some legislation won’t bother them. Not being able to go home and sleep in their bed will.
I’m going to ask for a citation for this. I looked (really did) and cannot find where a quorum call ends a filibuster.
The documentary, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” also disagrees. 