Mods: I realize that this thread may end up being moved to GD. So be it.
Given that Ted Cruz’s filibuster probably won’t do much to stop the funding of Obamacare got me thinking.
How effective are (or were) filibusters? I see them as no more than a delaying tactic that is unlikely to change anyone’s mind. Senator Cruz even ended up voting against the thing he was actually filibustering for.
In the past have filibusters worked to change the course of major congressional legislation? Why was the filibuster created in the first place?
Ted Cruz did not engage in a filibuster. He just gave a long speech and ceded the floor when his time was up. A real filibuster brings business to a dead halt and prevents action on a bill.
Currently filibusters in the U.S. Senate are tremendously effective. That’s because the Senate rules currently allow for a “procedural filibuster”. With a procedural filibuster you don’t need to stand up an do all that talking. You just announce your intention to do so, and the Senate treats that as though you had actually done it.
What this means is that recently the Senate has been operating under a 3/5 rule for passing most legislation. Instead of a simple majority being able to pass bills, you need to have a 3/5 majority to overcome the procedural filibuster and allow a bill to proceed to a vote. This is one of the chief causes of gridlock in the U.S. Senate and there have been many calls to revise the rules to eliminate the procedural filibuster.
I’m deleting what I just wrote because The Hamster King explained it better.
In some state legislatures they don’t allow a procedural filibuster, but a “real” talking filibuster is still possible. A great example is the filibuster by Texas state senator Wendy Davis, who talked for 11 straight hours and delayed the vote on the bill till past the end of the session, effectively blocking the bill from passing. (Though it was later passed in a special session the following month.)
Years ago, the filibuster made it difficult to get civil right legislation out of Congress; southern senators would filibuster any bill related to it. The Senate back then had a lot of work to do passing other legislation, so a serious filibuster would gum up the works so that the bill would be dropped.
Extremely. In the 2009-2010 session of congress various laws were passed by the house which couldn’t be passed by the senate due to filibusters. It was probably due in part by complicity by the democrats (because several of the laws were fairly progressive and would alienate wealthy interests). But it works pretty well.
However like I was saying, those are situations where a filibuster arguably has support from both parties. I have no idea how effective it is when one party actually wants to end the filibustering.
Plus filibustering is fairly easy, I think you can literally just take turns phoning it in. You don’t actually have to stand at your desk w/o bathroom breaks or the ability to sit down.
They’re completely effective. Unless one party can get 60 votes, a filibuster will kill the proposal.
The Ted Cruz speech is a bad example: that wasn’t a filibuster. Due to a rare quirk of the budget rules, a Republican filibuster in that one case would have played into Democrats’ hands. So Cruz just gave a long speech instead, and called it a ‘filibuster’.