Recently I’ve been reading this politics book and at some point I stumbled across a very interesting senatorial tactic (in the US).
Apparently, a Senator can invoke the “filibuster”, which means he will start talking without stoping for hours and hours (Some senator actually talked over 43 hours in a row!)
I was wondering, what are they talking about all this time, do they have to talk politics or can they just start reading a book out loud or making up stuff on the spot?
The Senate can vote to restrict discussion on a particular bill but most of the time a Senator can talk about anything they want to, even read from a book. And everything the senator says will be recorded and published for everyone to read.
This should help a bit.
The senator can talk about anything he wants, so long as he doesn’t stop talking, doesn’t sit down, doesn’t yield the floor, and a motion to close debate isn’t passed.
Its rarely invoked, for obvious reasons…
I believe, in the American congress at least, that they can talk about anything they want. The key condition seems to be that they do not resume their seat or take any type of a break (bathroom, food, etc.) during the period of the filibuster. Doing any of these things cedes the floor to another speaker, and the purpose of a filibuster is generally to prevent discussion, debate, or voting from taking place on a particular issue.
Interestingly, according to this website, a filibuster in the US Senate can be stopped by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, but that is difficult to obtain. The site also mentions some well-known filibusters:
Nowadays, Strom Thurmond would have trouble speaking for 24 minutes, let alone 24 hours, and the amount of coherent argument that would come out of his mouth could be more likely measured in seconds.
There was a woman on a city council somewhere in the midwest who was doing some kind of filibuster. She needed to take a leak so she got some people to bring her a bucket and they held up blankets around her. She did her business right there at the podium and kept on talking.
Actually, I thought that the Senate now permits filibusters in which someone doesn’t actually have to stand up and talk. The senator in question can just inform the president of the Senate that a filibuster is in progress. Did I mishear that?
I hadn’t heard that, ascenray, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
These days the more common tactic is the group filibuster, where for instance a party or bloc of senators will prevent a vote by yielding the floor to each other. However, several years ago the Senate changed to rules for a cloture motion, the motion that can stop a filibuster, to require only 60 votes, not 67.
–Cliffy
I didn’t want to post a new topic since this one had good information.
This thread doesnt answer exactly what the rules are though. The Senate Democrats are threatening to filibuster the Estrada nomination, and I was curious as to what they actually had to do.
Does the filibuster have to go all night? What happens if it stops at 10 pm when all the Senators are out drinking and partying with the lobbyists? Can they vote right away the next day? Or can another Senator step up and start their own filibuster?
Can a Senator only filibuster once during a filibuster? Or can they jump back onto the end of the line?
Do we have a final say as to whether or not they have to stand?
Does anyone know where the actual rules are enumerated?
A filibuster is a way for the memebers of the minority position in the Senate to avoid a vote, thus accepting defeat. It was a tactic used by southern Senators during debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It is generally frowned upon and rarely used anymore as the media can do a better job of keeping the public aware that it is happening.
Yeah, if I remember correctly that was a St. Louis (or maybe a suburb) city council meeting. She was subsequently charged with public urination. . .then she tried to say that she really didn’t do anything in the trash can, but was only making a point. I’m pretty sure the charges were dropped/dismissed because no one could say for sure whether or not she actually urinated. :rolleyes: <sigh>
If the filibuster is “rarely used” today, it is only because the threat of a filibuster is often enough to make the majority give in. The result is that if usually takes 60 votes to get anything the least bit controversial through the Senate.
One seldom sees the old-style filibusters where Huey Long would read Southern recipes into the Congressional Record for 24 hours at a stretch. Most filibusters are group efforts, and it’s easy enough for 15 or 20 Senators to organize a relay and keep the Senate tied up around the clock. Since it’s so easy, it’s not usually done–the majority either (a) invokes cloture, if they have 60 votes; (b) negotiates a compromise with the hold-outs; or © just admits defeat and moves on to other business.
If compromise fails and a filibuster does take place, the process places a huge burden on all involved. The majority must keep a quorum within shouting distance of the Senate floor at all times; if a quorum call turns up less than a majority, the Senate must adjourn which furthers the interests of the filibusters.
Strom Thurmond’s ability to filibuster now would be further hampered by the fact that he’s not in the Senate anymore.
One thing we never saw in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” was Jimmy Stewart going to the bathroom. That’s got to be a big problem.
I believe that Thurmond had a “motorman’s friend” when he engaged in his record-setting filibuster. Wayne Morse of Oregon also had a very long filibuster in the 1950s. Thurmond’s filibuster had a break to allow a new member to get sworn in. I think Morse went the longest without a break.
Wrong on both counts. The filibuster (and to an even greater extent, the threat of a filibuster) have been widely used throughout the last several years since the Senate has been so closely divided. Indeed, I recall then-Sen. Majority Leader Daschle refusing to schedule a vote on the President’s HMO plan last year because, he claimed, it didn’t have 60 votes, there was a planned Democratic filibuster, and therefore it would only be a waste of time that could be better used to pass security legislation.
Prior to the last couple Congresses the filibuster was less well used not because it was looked down upon, but primarily because the lowering of the requirement for a cloture motion from 2/3 to 3/5 of the Chamber meant that filibusters could not be effective – if one party has more than 60 seats, then it can almost always defeat a filibuster. Even if a party had 57 seats, it could usually find a few votes to invoke cloture.
–Cliffy
The threat of a filibuster is frequently used and it is very effective. There are also many other dilatory actions that are frequently used, such as the hold.
Because the unanimous consent of all senators is generally required to turn to the consideration of a bill, resolution, or nomination, one senator can anonymously register an objection with his party’s leadership. The leadership is bound to respect the objection, and thus the matter in question may never be debated on the floor.
If a bill is on the floor, a senator can “fill up the amendment tree” to prevent an amendment from being offered and voted upon. Un-filling the tree would be a time-consuming affair, and subject to filibuster.
Certain matters cannot be filibustered. There is a time limit for consideration of the yearly budget resolution (not the appropriations bills), and certain matters are considered on a fast track – limited debate, no amendments, followed by a vote. The fast track procedures are usually proscribed by law for specific circumstances; eg, denying a presidential request to extend temporary normal trade relations to a country with human rights problems; certain trade bills; and various other matters.
jklann gave an accurate answer, except that there is no requirement for a quorum to be present during a filibuster. The Senate presumes a quorum is present unless proved otherwise, and a senator must gain recognition (ie, the filibustering senator must yield the floor) before he can suggest that a quorum is not present.
It sounds as if some things (like swearing in a new member in Thurmond’s case) can occur during a filibuster. I guess voting to stop the filibuster obviously must take place while it’s still going on, as well.
How does this work? Does the guy stop yammering without yielding the floor somehow, or this other activity go on with his droning as a nice background soundtrack?
That’s why I said that the majority (the “anti-filibuster” side, if you will) must maintain a quorum “within shouting distance” of the Senate floor. The usual process would be that the speaker or an ally would demand a quorum call. If less than a quorum answers the roll call, the Senate must either adjourn or go through the time-consuming process of having the Sergeant at Arms round up absent members. Such delays, of course, further the interests of the filibusters.
Interesting question. I’ve wondered the same myself. My own experience with parliamentary procedure in other organizations leads me to assume that another senator can interrupt with a motion for cloture (just like under Robert’s Rules you can interrupt with a point of order) and that the chamber will consider this without technically relieving the filibuster-er of the floor.
–Cliffy
Just out of interest, are any filibuster texts availible anywhere to read?