# Explain filibustering and political parties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 21, 2009, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187 "2009-08-21T10:46:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/21 "2009-08-21T18:38:44Z")
I didn’t think there was specific reason courts would rule against it, but sometimes people get real creative when they challenge things in court. I was pretty sure this was the case - "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. " So the filibuster falls under “rules of proceedings” (Article I, section 5) ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/22 "2009-08-21T18:50:52Z")
> [@Bijou\_Drains](#): > > I didn’t think there was specific reason courts would rule against it, but sometimes people get real creative when they challenge things in court. > > I was pretty sure this was the case - "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. " So the filibuster falls under “rules of proceedings” (Article I, section 5) Which means that filibustering (or not) passes constitutional muster, as a procedure to be determined by the legislative body, not something for the court to rule on. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/23 "2009-08-21T18:53:55Z")
I think I can guarantee without any likely cavil that the filibuster is fully constitutional: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…” (Article I, Section 5, paragraph 2). If the House formally required in its Rules that anybody testifying before one of its committees wear a ballet tutu, a red clown nose, and prefix his/her remarks with “Wooba, wooba, wooba,” that would be completely constitutional. ETA: “Damn you, **Bijou Drains**!!!” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/24 "2009-08-21T19:36:05Z")
Hmmm. It would certainly make C-SPAN more interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/25 "2009-08-21T19:42:33Z")
> [@](#): > > If the House formally required in its Rules that anybody testifying before one of its committees wear a ballet tutu, a red clown nose, and prefix his/her remarks with “Wooba, wooba, wooba,” that would be completely constitutional. In fact, we ought to pass an amendment _requiring_ that. I don’t want anyone making policy decisions who’s afraid of a little good-natured public humiliation. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/26 "2009-08-21T19:46:10Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Senators regard voting cloture as something of a ‘nuclear option’ – to be used only when truly necessary. Just to clarify, the “nuclear option” being discussed a while back in the context of cloture was not the cloture vote; rather, it was the effort to rewrite Senate rules to do away with the need for a supermajority cloture vote, reducing the required votes to a bare majority. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/27 "2009-08-21T20:04:22Z")
> [@whole\_bean](#): > > Just to clarify, the “nuclear option” being discussed a while back in the context of cloture was not the cloture vote; rather, it was the effort to rewrite Senate rules to do away with the need for a supermajority cloture vote, reducing the required votes to a bare majority. Good point – the metaphor has taken on such a life of its own that I wasn’t even thinking where it first was (metaphorically) used! :o ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/28 "2009-08-22T00:00:56Z")
Are there any numbers available for the frequency with which it has been used in recent years? ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187/29 "2009-08-22T16:49:07Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > But if the compromise can’t be reached, it would become an actual filibuster, right? no not necessary. if no compromise is reached the the bill might not come up for discussion, or before bringing it up for discussion the senate can vote to limit the amount of time each senator can hold the floor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-filibustering-and-political-parties/507187.md?page=1)