It said in the news today that Bush pulled out Estrada’s nomination today. And that it was a result of a 2 year Filibuster.
My understanding of a filibuster mostly comes from “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” so forgive my lack of knowledge in the subject. But I thought a filibuster was when someone holds the floor continuously without sitting or stop talking.
How could this possibly go for 2 years? Obviously I am missing a loop hole in the fillibuster process right?
Here’s the paragraph from the news:
“But Democrats prevented a confirmation vote with a procedural hurdle known as a filibuster that could only be cleared if backers got 60 votes”
Yes, the filibuster has been changed. Senate rules now allow a senator to filibuster, but also to “table” the filibuster while still ongoing so that the Senate can deal with other business. The filibuster stays “open”, preventing any further debate on the subject. Only with a “cloture” vote, which requires 60 votes, can a filibuster now be ended.
In essence, a senator can filibuster indefinitely as long as the opposing party cannot muster 60 votes.
The original filibuster was like a super pirate and an entrepreneur at being a soldier of fortune. He would go into somebody else’s country and take over part of it (or all of it if it was a small country). Often a successful filibuster who had American citizenship would call on Uncle Sam to pull his nuts out of the fire when things got hot. This was how the United States acquired the territory of Florida, Texas, California, and Hawaii. William Walker took over Nicaragua by filibuster but couldn’t keep it, and Uncle Sam wasn’t interested in acquiring it. Aaron Burr was going to be the first American filibuster, but he was after carving out his own little empire. President Jefferson was having none of it, so Burr was arrested before he could carry out his scheme (since the Louisiana Purchase had just been purchased, who needed the erratic method of soldiers of fortune?) When the Philippine patriot José Rizal wrote his book El Filibusterismo he was not thinking of legislative maneuvers. He was suggesting that the Filipinos filibuster their own country away from the Spanish Empire, i.e., revolt.
(I wrote a nice, detailed answer, then the damn board pooped out on me.)
Pilot141 is essentially correct, with the nitpick that there was no rule change in the Senate that allowed two-track filibusters (ie, one bill “filibustered,” but not actually being debated, and another bill on the Floor actually subject to debate and votes).
This strategy was devised by former Majority Leader Mike Mansfield as a way to get things done while action on one bill (or nomination) was being blocked. Any Majority Leader, at any time, could simply choose to go back to the Mr. Smith-style filibusters.
Here’s a good analysis, if you ignore the partisan sniping.
