Talk:Filibuster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Filibuster is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

Contents

[edit] Discussion

The "in current practice" part is not very clear. As a non-american, I've got no idea what is meant by "procedural filibuster" compared to "traditional filisbuster". Would be cool to know.

It sort of does, though apparently not clearly. In the "old days" the Senator could delay things by making an endless speech. Now, he need only indicate that he's filibustering, thereby preventing the senate from moving on to other business until they have enough votes for cloture. He doesn't have to keep talking continuously, but no new business can be conducted till the filibuster is 'dealt with'. Personally I don't think anyone will fully understand filibustering until they see Frank Capra's 1939 movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington<g> -- Someone else 10:20 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have an additional question about Frank Capra's movie, it is referenced as such "This is an homage to the above mentioned Frank Capra film." The problem I have with this is that nobody mentions the fact that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is by Frank Capra. I realized that this was the reference only because I love Frank Capra and know the film. Without this prior knowledge I would have to click on the links to discover this 3 paragraphs down. Webhat 06:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] question

is the filibuster practiced in any other national, state, or province governing body in the world? Kingturtle 18:23, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I seemt to recall reading somewhere that in the Houses of Commons in the UK, any member of parliament can halt preccedings and cause an immediate evacuation at any time by stating "spying eyes are present" (or some variation on that). This originated in War times to combat espionage, but has since been used to delay debate etc. I'm not sure where I read this though, or how accurate my memory of it is...

I beleive the House of Commoms phrase is "I spy strangers", other than that you're correct. Grinner 15:38, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
When was this last used in the UK? I have not seen a filibuster in the US sense of going on and on used in the UK because usually the speaker will tell someone to shut up if they go off topic. Deszmond

When was the filibuster first used in the US?

I think it was in the 1850s. The rules for fillibusters have changed many times since then, however. NCdave 8 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)


[edit] Filibusters in the UK Parliament - Henry Brougham's speech / general revision required

I am not particularly happy with that section, but haven't got time to revise it. Therefore, just some thoughts.

a) "The all-time Commons record for non-stop speaking is six hours, set by Henry Brougham in 1828." Mentioning Brougham's speech in this context seems to suggest that Brougham's speech was a filibuster. This is wrong. Brougham's famous speech "Present State of the Law" was a serious effort to draw attention to the need for law reforms. It was just a long speech, but length alone does not make a speech a filibuster, does it?

b) I am not sure what the selection of filibusters is meant to demonstrate. From a few sources, which unfortunately are not at my hand, it appears that "talking out" was a rather common parliamentary strategy at least around the middle of the 19th century, so these examples can hardly claim to illustrate the history of "filibusters".

c) The whole section seems to be a rather crude rewording of this article: [1] However, this article is only about ONE particular "filibuster" by Mr Dismore; the other speeches are just mentioned for their length, but NOT for their obstructive purposes (and in Brougham's case, there was definitely no such obstructive purpose). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.226.135.65 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] cartoon

Filibuster is also the name of a web-based political cartoon

[edit] What's the point?

I don't understand the purpose of a filibuster. How does wasting everyone's time "derail" legislation? Can't the Senate just wait 'til the guy's finished blabbing, then continue on? Won't everybody just thing the filibuster-er is really annoying and walk out on him? Don't answer me here - it would be better if someone would make the article clearer on this point. Brian Kendig 03:58, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's just it. If they walk out on the speaker, then he could call for a vote, and if only those who would have voted for/against the bill had left, the vote might be swayed.

--Mr Bound 01:06, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have always been wondering why this practice is still being allowed by law. It seems very archaic and silly, and doesn't really seem to have a place in a modern legislature. This whole derailing of legislation seems like a very childish way to conduct debates and votings. Any opinions about that?
Kind of like forcing the recount of election votes dozens of times regardless of the result always saying you've lost.

--193.11.220.45 13:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Very immature indeed. I was actually surpised that one could do that.

but see thats whats beautiful of this country. The minority can atleast try to fight a bill instead of getting ignored. Its very archaic but very effective.

[edit] Moved text from article

[begin moved text] Error: "Until 1917, there was no formal mechanism to allow the senate to close debate, and any senator could start a filibuster."


Correction: ""Rule 7. In case of a debate becoming tedious, four Senators may call for the question; or the same number may at any time move for the previous question, viz, "Shall the main question now be put?" " Citation: Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(mj0016))

And: "WHILE a question is before the Senate, no motion shall be received unless for an amendment, for the previous question, or for postponing the main question, or to commit it, or to adjourn. Rule 8." and

"The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the chair shall be, "Shall the main question be now put?"11 and if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put. Rule 9."

Citation: A MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE: for the Use of the Senate of the United States. BY THOMAS JEFFERSON http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htm

Until 1806, when the rule on "moving the question' was dropped, filibusters were not possible. [end moved text]

The moved text does discuss calling the question, but isn't shown to address the specific issue relevant to filibusters, interrupting a speaker who has the floor. Alone, I don't think it proves anything. Comments? Samaritan 02:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Frozen Republic, erm...

What's that bit about "(Frozen Republic, 198)" ?

Can you elaborate?

.~.

[edit] Leaving the bells ringing

In the Canadian parliament in 1982, the Opposition (Conservative) whip did not enter the house of commons to indicate to the speaker (by bowing) that the Opposition was ready to vote on a National Energy Programme bill. With this ceremonial procedure incomplete, the Speaker could not call for a division of the house. The division bells rang for two weeks (they usually ring for several minutes to give members enough time to get to the house). The Government agreed to split the bill into two (more?) parts, after which the Opposition whip entered the house.

Later, the Parliament amended the standing orders to eliminate the ceremonial bowing of whips to the speaker.


[edit] Relevance of filibuster content

The New American link at the bottom notes that, unlike stated in the article here, it's necessary for a filibuster to remain at least marginally on topic. Perhaps this can (referencing the appropriate rule) can be worked into the discussion.

[edit] Broken link

The [1] link (describing "cow walk") is broken and leads to the "Turkish daily news" homepage. --N0nick 21:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Nuclear Option (filibuster)

While doing heavy restructure edits to the Nuclear option article, I yanked what's a really good history of U.S. filibusters. It's more relevant here, but needs work. Have a go:

In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.
When the first U.S. Senate met in 1789, the filibuster was not an option. The Senate adopted rules allowing them "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806, this rule was eliminated, removing that mechanism for ending debate and clearing the way for the filibuster. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837. In 1917, a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) with the vote of two-thirds of Senators present. In 1949, this was changed to two-thirds of the total membership, then in 1959 to two-thirds of those present and voting. In 1975, the cloture requirement was lowered to the current requirement of three-fifths of total membership.
Another type of filibuster used in the Senate: the post-cloture filibuster—using points of order to consume time, since they are not counted as part of the limited time provided for debate) — was eliminated as an effective delay technique by a rule change in 1979.
Before 2002, there were other procedural methods that allowed a minority party to block judicial nominations. The two most prevalent methods were "blue slips" and "holds", both of which prevent a nomination from leaving the Senate Judiciary Committee to proceed to the full Senate for debate and confirmation. Both methods allow just a few senators, and in some cases only one, to block a nomination.
Republicans made frequent use of these procedures under the Clinton Administration, but under the Bush Administration they have modified Senate rules to render both methods ineffective. Under current rules, the minority party has only one remaining procedural block with which to counter a nomination: the filibuster.

[edit] Blue Slips

Before a nomination is passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is screened by both senators from the nominee's home state, who endorse or object to the nominee on a piece of paper called a blue slip. Until 1995, a nominee would not be removed from committee consideration unless both home-state senators objected to the nominee. [2] (PDF)
In 1995, Republicans gained control of the Senate and modified the rules governing the judiciary committee process. The first such modification pertained to the blue slip rule. In the 104th Congress, 18 states had split Senate delegations, one Republican and one Democrat. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, changed the rule so that a nominee would be removed from consideration if only one of the home-state senators objected. The wording on the blue slips was also revised to say, “[n]o further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by the nominee’s home state senators.”[3] This allowed senators to delay nominations by not returning blue slips. Some of President Clinton's nominees were delayed years waiting for blue slips to be returned from Republican senators.[4]
After President George W. Bush took office in 2001, Hatch reversed positions on the "two blue slip" requirement and rewrote the rule to require both home-state senators to object to a nominee in order to block the nomination. [5] The text of the blue slip was also modified to remove the sentence saying no further proceedings would be scheduled until the blue slip was returned to the committee. These changes were overturned when Democrats regained control of the Senate, after Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont) changed his party alignment.
After the 2002 congressional elections, Republicans returned to majority party status. At that time, the blue slip requirements were again changed to require two dissenting blue slips to reject a nominee before the committee. Nevertheless, there have been hearings in which two dissenting blue slips were submitted but the nomination process was not halted. In 2003, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the fitness of Henry Saad. This occurred after both home-state senators, Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, had objected to Saad's nomination [6]. With no committee options left to derail nominations to which they objected, Democrats began threatening to filibuster nominations once they reached the full floor of the Senate.

[edit] Holds

A "hold" is a procedure in which a senator communicates to the Senate leadership that he or she would withhold support for a unanimous consent agreement if a matter were to be brought before the Senate. The reason this has power is that in the absence of a powerful Rules Committee like the United States House of Representatives has, the Senate's ordinary business depends on unanimous consent agreements to specify what bills will be considered when, who may speak, what amendments (if any) may be offered, and when votes will take place. The quiet threat of a hold ordinarily is enough to take an issue -- including a judicial nomination -- off of the agenda, at least temporarily.
Republican Senators used this method to postpone votes on nominees in the Judiciary Committee under the Clinton Administration. [7] In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. [8] Anonymous floor holds were abolished in 2003 [9].
The term nuclear optionwas partially abandoned by some of its supporters, who preferred to call it "the Constitutional option" or "the Byrd option" To make matters more confusing, in April 2005 Republicans began to attempt to redefine the 'nuclear option' as a description of the Democratic filibuster, rather than the rule change that would end it[10]. Important Republicans in the controversy included Majority Leader Bill Frist, who was one of the strongest opponents of the filibuster (and whose support from the religious right for his 2008 election bid may have depended on ending it[11]), and the those like John McCain that would have broken with their party in opposition to the nuclear option, possibly denying Frist the necessary majority.

Moved by--ghost 05:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary Meanings?

I like to use the word "filibuster" as a verb to describe the act of talking on...and on.... and on..... I wonder if anyone else has thought of such a definition? 68.32.48.32 1 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

[edit] Republicans Party First to use Filibuster

As an Independent I hope I have removed any bias in my addition. If any Republican feels the post does contain bias, please advice. Thank you, Daniel.

Yes, I believe the article is biased in a liberal direction:

1. The real damage being done to Senate tradition is by the Democrats -- that's the real "nuclear option."

2. Abe Fortas would never have been confirmed. This is the absolute first time the filibuster is being used for judicial nominees who would otherwise be confirmed by the senate. They are being filibustered simply because certain democratic senators (or the left-wing groups they "represent") just don't like their judicial ideas, not because they would make bad judges.

[edit] How to choose judges?

Isn't a judge supposed to be impartial? A firmly held ideology in either direction prejudices the justices to the point that it is almost certain which way 7-8 judges will vote, before any arguments are even heard. In such a situation, wouldn't a strongly prejudiced judge constitute a "bad" one? In my mind, O'Connor was the ideal judge, able to look at things on a case-by-case basis and decide for herself how to interpret the Constitution to the given situation. Just my 2 cents ---Jeff (The Uncarved Block) 23:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burr's Connection

In 1806, Aaron Burr was in the midst of plotting an attempted conspiracy to conquer lands west of the Appalachians for his own nation. How could he be in the Senate making a rules change two years after shooting Alexander Hamilton dead? --KHill-LTown 20:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Filibuster (military) / Filibuster (settler) / Filibuster (legislative tactic)

The term filibuster is also used to refer to the various efforts in the mid-19th century by private individuals to take control of various Central American and Caribbean territories with an eye towards them being annexed by the United States. I'd like to write an article about them, but am undecided on the title as both Filibuster (history) and Filibuster (military) would seem appropriate. Comments? Caerwine 22:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and wrote the article and named it Filibuster (military) but as strated doing various diambigs, I encountered the article Filibuster (settler) which wasn't liked from this page and Filibuster (legislative tactic) which links to this page and Filibuster (diambiguation). Clearly the links all need to be cleaned up and better organized. For now I'm going to switch the link to Filibuster (military) at top that I added to Filibuster (disambiguation), but I sure would have had an easier time had that link been there to start with. Caerwine 16:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Filibuster (settler) and Filibuster (military) are now merged under Filibuster (military), since to describe the filibusters as "settlers" is a euphemism, to say the least.


[edit] Apologies.

I'm new at this. Forgot to put something in edit summary, in editing the article. I suppose it's too late now. Anyway, the point was not political pontification, just pointing out something. Namely, the foolishness of negotiating a vague, undefined term which allows either or both sides to do whatever they wish, making the agreement worthless. Not intended to say either party's seven is better than the other, or that the rest of the Senate is any better or worse than the fourteen in question.BPMoldovan 04:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transcript

Where can I read an unedited transcript of Thurmond's 1957 speech? Bastie 15:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constituional argument against filibuster (a.k.a. the "nuclear option")

What exactly is the legal argument against the Senate's filibuster rule? Is it that the Senate has the constitutional responsibility to confirm justices and that the filibuster (potentially) prevents that? What majority of the Senate is required to declare the rule unconstitutional? Is such a change then subject to Supreme Court review?

I belive it comes from Article 1, Section 5 - "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings ...". The Senate has changed its rules on filibusters in the past (as with many other rules), and there dosen't seem to be any reason why it can't in the future. Toiyabe 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent change in the timing of tactical filibusters

I've noticed in the US Senate that in the last few months, the timings of tactical filibusters have also changed. Traditionly there used to be closure motions towards the end of debate to bring the debate to a close and vote. (Technically if pased, there was still 1 hour left per senator, but in practice very little of this time was used.) Now, there are tactical filibusters on motions to proceed. (In other words unless the filibuster is broken via a closure vote the bill can't be "offically" debated to begin with [nor amended on the floor.]) Jon 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is a fillibuster?

Is the filibuster consistent with our institutions democratic values...democratic not meaning political parties?69.215.200.206 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Steph

[edit] Filibuster by Cato in Roman times?

My Latin isn't good enough, but I think that the first mention of a filibuster would be by Caesar in his notes on the Roman Civil War, Book I, Chapter 32, where he is pissed that Cato spends the whole day talking to avoid a vote:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Civil_War_%28Caesar%29/Book_1#32

There is another translation by John Warrington where it seems clearer:

...particularly of Cato, who, as usual, had tried to hold up the vote by talking all day...

But somebody needs to check the original before we can touch this.

--Scot W. Stevenson 07:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restrictions

Are there restrictions on filibusters? Eating, drinking, sitting down, going to the bathroom, standing without talking, etc. 192.115.100.11 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural Filibusters Source?

I've been looking, and I cannot find any reliable sources that explain procedural filibusters. I have found blogs that talk about the subject, but the only source that I can find that defines it, other than Wikipedia itself, is H2G2, and I don't know how reliable that is as a source.Ganonsghost 07:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 60 vote threshold vs actual continuous speech

"In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses"

Does anyone know the last time that a US Senator was actually required to speak continuously to maintain a filibuster?

Bill faulk 20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it last occured in July of this year, in the case of one of the Iraq War-related bills. See "Democrats Steer All-Night Iraq Debate". It'd be great to add a mention of recent filibusters to the article,if you'd like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
My impression of the July 16th overnight session was that the Senate remained in session but that no one had to keep speaking. I'm curious to see how often the Senate Majority Leader has actually required formal debate and will see what I can find out. Bill faulk 14:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, Senators had to engage in debate on the 16th to avoid a vote on the underlying resolution. (If no one seeks recognition, then the Senate has to vote.) So, the overnight session was filled with Senators engaging in debate. I think the last time a Senator took to the floor to prevent consideration of a measure was Al D'Amato in 1986. (At least, that's the last time I can recall.) JasonCNJ 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I sent a letter to the Senate historian so hopefully I'll get more information. I found a summary of cloture votes but it made no distinction between procedural and traditional filibusters. Bill faulk 00:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Democrats spoke for some time during the overnight session. But the sentence from the article claims their Majority Leader, Harry Reid, could have required the Republicans to take over the job of speaking continuously after that session or lose the right to filibuster (say) a bill to cut off Iraq war funding after an appropriate date. Could he? Dan 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Democrats could have planned to avoid speaking on the floor at any time, forcing Republicans to keep up debate. There is no previous question motion (a motion to cut off debate and vote) in the Senate; the Senate votes immediately on any measure under consideration unless Senators seek recognition to debate the proposal. So, in theory, if the Dems refused to debate any measure and no Republican sought recognition, then the Chair would put the question under debate to the Senate for a vote. I suspect the reason Dems spoke during the overnight session was because there were more than enough Republicans to sholder the burden and, since the filibuster was not going to be broken, the Dems wanted to get their say in, too. So, in theory, when the majority is trying to break a true filibuster, the Senators wishing to delay a vote must keep talking to avoid a vote on the underlying proposal or motion...that vote is automatic unless a Senator is recognized for debate. JasonCNJ 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I realized I didn't really answer your question. The Republicans would never have "lost the right" to filibuster - that right is guaranteed to every Senator by Rule XXII. But, if the Dems aren't speaking on the measure (say to cut off funding for the war by a date certain) and the Republicans failed to have a speaker ready to seek recognition, then the Senate would vote on the underlying bill. So the filibuster would have been broken and the Republicans would have lost. JasonCNJ 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)