So I understand what a filibuster is and how it works in practice. A filibuster is when a politician intentionally speaks as long as possible during debate to prevent a vote on legislation. And I know in practice, it means that any legislation needs 60 votes for cloture to end debate and bring legislation to a vote.
But my question is, how? Is the belief that every member of the minority party will take turns filibustering and delay the legislation for days if not weeks and derail the rest of the agenda? I’m trying to bridge the concept of a politician sitting in the pulpit for 12 hours reading off a phone book and how it works in practice where they vote for cloture and then give up if it doesn’t reach 60 votes. Can they just say they want to keep debate open and sit there unless the senate majority leader either calls for cloture or moves on to another bill?
In: Other
The only thing that you’re missing is that the modern Senate effectively changed the rules so that a bill won’t go to vote without the 60 cloture votes and the “speaking filibuster” is no longer required.
As others have noted, this is a Senate rule that both Rs and Ds have kept when they have the majority against much frustration from their base, despite the fact that it would be a simple rules vote at the beginning of a term. The general theory is that it’s protective of Senators to minimize tough votes: (1) when they’re in the minority, they won’t get steamrolled by the other side, and (2) when they’re in the majority they won’t be forced to vote for or against their party’s controversial legislation. For example, a centrist Democrat like Joe Manchin would prefer that something like Medicare for all or a fracking ban never comes to the floor so that he doesn’t have to vote against the party. It’s primarily (2) that keeps it in place.
The current exceptions are Supreme Court nominations (the “nuclear option”) and the annual budget reconciliation bill. Many things get jammed into the reconciliation bill as a result.
Latest Answers