As I understand it, filibusters in the US Senate are not actually performed, just threatened. All a senator has to do, apparently, is say they are going to filibuster some proposal. Then a vote is taken, and 60% of the senators must vote to end the filibuster, or the proposal is dead. Basically, everything the senate does now requires a 60% majority.
In great classic movies, senators were forced to actually filibuster – they had to take the floor, and be prepared to hold the floor for hours, if not days. It took 60% of the senators to stop him from speaking.
Why isn’t this done any more? I don’t understand why the non-obstructing party doesn’t just call the person on their filibuster bluff, and force them to perform. It seems to me that a senator would have to be pretty serious about a filibuster to actually carry through.
I’m hoping there’s a good reason for this change in operation. Can anybody explain this for me?
Because eventually the power structure will flip-flop and the party currently in power doesn’t want, when it becomes the minority, not to have the filibuster as it currently exists.
Also, in order to force the real filibuster, you’ve got to give the guy floor time on the Senate. Nobody wants to tie up Senate time listening to some guy reading the phone book. It’s not like the whole senate has to be present listening, but while the filibuster is going on no other business can take place.
Well, in one classic movie, anyway . . . Have there been other “filibuster movies” besides Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?
Real-life round-the-clock filibusters were never all that common, but to the extent they are even less common today, these are the reasons:
(a) The Senate has more to do, as the size and scope of the federal government have grown, making delays more problematic.
b) The Senate tends to spend fewer days in session than in the past, as Senators wish to spend more time campaigning and fund-raising, again making delays more problematic.
c) Filibusters are threatened more often, as the reduction in the cloture requirement from 67 to 60 votes has paradoxically made them more socially acceptable. Before, when a fillibuster could block the will of 66 Senators, it was considered an extreme tactic, used only on “special occasions” (for Southerners, translate as “opposing civil rights bills”) or by cranks like Huey Long. Now that a filibuster blocks the will of (at most) 59 Senators, there is more a feeling that “If it can’t get 60 votes, it doesn’t deserve to pass”, so there are more threatened filibusters, and if they all became actual filibusters, nothing else would ever get done.
The implication in the first sentence is that someone controls time for debate in the Senate, or that the time is given by someone. It’d be more correct to say that someone would be required to take time or forced to speak in order to prevent a vote from occurring. I know you know that, but I didn’t want the implication to linger that filibusters don’t occur because a party leader doesn’t want to hand out the time for one to occur.
Folks may be interested to know that perhaps the most recent “real” filibuster of any real length was perpetrated by now-Majority Leader Harry Reid. He sought to protest a Republican plan for a “30 hour reverse filibuster,” which was an attempt to try to get the Senate to approve several controversial judicial nominations by Bush. Reid derailed efforts to get some Senate business done before that 30 hour spectacle could begin (in contrast to a real filibuster and my previous statement, this one was in fact scheduled). So Reid spoke for eight hours about rabbits, goulash, and his home of Searchlight, Nevada.
Here’s my understanding of the history of filibustering and cloture:
The basic, underlying rule - the original rule in both Houses of Congress - was that debate on a bill or motion continued until everyone had had their say, and then they voted.
The House moved away from this way of doing business pretty early in the game; the Senate stayed with it for over a century.
The practice of filibustering as we know it initially became common in the mid-19th century, when Senators figured out they could use the rule in (1) above to prevent a vote altogether. A ‘filibuster’ out in the real world at the time was…well, think ‘William Walker’, not quite a pirate but almost. And the name got stuck to those who hijacked the Senate debate in this manner.
Back in the Wilson Administration, IIRC, the Senate changed its rules so that a 2/3 majority could impose ‘cloture’, an end to the debate, even if a minority wanted to continue talking.
Sometime in the 1960s or 1970s, the 2/3 required for cloture was changed to 3/5.
Blocking cloture on practically everything first became a common practice during the 1993-94 Congress.
When cloture is blocked, the Senate Majority Leader has the power to keep it on the floor, or pull it.
The underlying rule is still there: if cloture is blocked, and the Majority Leader keeps the bill on the floor, then when everyone’s done talking, a vote is held. Which would mean the party blocking cloture would have to filibuster the old-fashioned talkfest way in order to block an actual vote.
Somehow I missed seeing ‘Billy Jack Goes to Washington’, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Senator Billy’s filibuster involved complex ‘foot to the head’ type maneuvers.
There is no limit on the amount of time a senator can speak during debate. So, in order to prevent a vote on an issue from occurring, a senator can choose to just stand there and keep talking… indefinitely. I believe the all-time record holder is Strom Thurmond, who filibustered the Civil Rights Act for over 24 hours.
Talking out is the UK equivalent, where debate on a bill outruns it’s allocated time, and the bill fails due to lack of time. Now, it is generally limited to private members bills - government bills can be debated through the night to force the vote. “Talking out” has to be to the topic being debated (no phone books here) and cannot include repetition. So the time periods are usually much shorter.
