Filibuster... Kill it or save it?

Bipartisan JPP agreement to nuke the filibuster?

  • Yes lets hold hand and do this.

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • No, fvck Trump i disagree. Keep it.

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • I was for nuking it but not now i see Dems would like it.

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
The senate it’s self calls that first day action a filibuster


No, Desh, no, the official U.S. Senate website does not link to anything that a reasonable person could construe as the Senate itself calling the first day's actions a filibuster.

Descriptions of March 4, 1789, consistently portray it as a routine organizational delay due to insufficient attendance (only eight of 22 senators arrived amid winter travel difficulties), leading to oaths, a temporary presiding officer election, and adjournment until a quorum formed on April 6—no debates, bills, or obstructive tactics are mentioned.

The Senate's historical resources explicitly trace the filibuster's origins to 1806 (when rules changes enabled unlimited debate) and its first use in 1837 (a 14-day obstruction over expunging Andrew Jackson's censure).


 
Trying to give the Filibuster "sainthood" is weird to me.
I feel the same way.
I am glad they didn't use the "nuclear option"
I understand your sentiment. During the shut down, I DO believe that Republicans shouldn't have taken the "nuclear option" "trump card" off the table, though. I think that was a stupid move on their part, but thankfully they didn't need it.
but I do believe that very soon one of the parties will end it entirely and we'll go back to simple majority ending debate, when that happens that party will pack the SCOTUS and add two states (DC and Puerto Rico) in an attempt to take over government for the foreseeable future.
Bingo.
Personally I'd prefer the infinite filibuster rule because it would stop them from believing that their "job" is to pass laws rather than to represent people.
Unfortunately, I think that would favor Team Donkey because they are the ones who are more than happy to "buy votes" from feckless money-grubbing Republicans.
 
This.

The Senate's historical resources explicitly trace the filibuster's origins to 1806 (when rules changes enabled unlimited debate) and its first use in 1837 (a 14-day obstruction over expunging Andrew Jackson's censure). For primary details on the maiden session, see the Senate's chronology here.

That same site she linked to literally gives the same history I have given here.
 
It’s the exact way that first action was described
No, it was not. It says that "Long speeches" were used, not that it was a filibuster. The word didn't even exist until 1850. And the ability to actually do one didn't exist until 1806 when they removed the "previous question" rule. Read the site you earlier linked to, it says the same thing I am saying here.

The rule the Senate created by the Founders came up with ended debate with a simple majority vote.
 

Overview​



About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview


Whether praised as the protector of political minorities from the tyranny of the majority, or attacked as a tool of partisan obstruction, the right of unlimited debate in the Senate, including the filibuster, has been a key component of the Senate’s unique role in the American political system.
The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” As the number of filibusters grew in the 19th century, the Senate had no formal process to allow a majority to end debate and force a vote on legislation or nominations
 

Overview​




Whether praised as the protector of political minorities from the tyranny of the majority, or attacked as a tool of partisan obstruction, the right of unlimited debate in the Senate, including the filibuster, has been a key component of the Senate’s unique role in the American political system.
The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” As the number of filibusters grew in the 19th century, the Senate had no formal process to allow a majority to end debate and force a vote on legislation or nominations
READ the whole thing...

It will give you the SAME HISTORY I have given here today. Maybe you'll even absorb information. Long Speeches in a Senate where they can end debate with a simple majority is not even close to the same thing as a filibuster.
 
Does Desh think that failing to reach a quorum is a filibuster?

When the convening date arrived, the First Congress was to meet in the newly refurbished and renamed Federal Hall in New York City to count the electoral votes for president and vice president, inaugurate the winners, and proceed with its business. Writing to his wife that momentous day, Pennsylvania senator Robert Morris described the dramatic transition taking place in the city: “Last Night they fired 13 Canon [sic] from the Battery here over the Funeral of the Confederation & this Morning they Saluted the New Government with Eleven Cannon being one for each of the States that have adopted the Constitution,” he wrote. (Rhode Island and North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitution.) “[R]inging of Bells & Crowds of People at the Meeting of Congress gave the air of a grand Festival to the 4th of March 1789 which no doubt will hereafter be Celebrated as a New Era in the Annals of the World.” The New York Daily Advertiser reported that “a general joy pervaded the whole city on this great, important and memorable event; every countenance testified a hope that under the auspices of the new government, commerce would again thrive … and peace and prosperity adorn our land.”

The exultation soon transitioned to disappointment, however, when both houses fell short of reaching the quorum required by the Constitution to conduct their business (30 representatives and 12 senators). Only 13 of the 59 representatives and only 8 of the 22 senators from the 11 states were present to offer their credentials (certificates of election) and be sworn in. "The number not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, they adjourned," reads the first entry in the Senate Journal..


 
Why is the title the history of filibusters

Are you quibbling about when the label was placed about the action?
 
Five days later, on April 6, the necessary 12th senator finally arrived, Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee. The Senate then turned to the important business of helping to formalize the new national government by declaring the winner of its first presidential election. “Being a Quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number of Senators of the United States. The Credentials of the aforementioned members were read and ordered to be filed,” the Senate Journal reads.

“The Senate proceeded by ballot to the choice of a President [pro tempore], for the sole purpose of opening and counting the votes for President of the United States.”

Thankfully, the inauspicious beginning of the First Congress’s first session would not be repeated, as subsequent sessions saw some improvement in punctuality. In January 1790, at the start of the second session, a more experienced Senate reduced its convening delay to only two days. Finally, at the beginning of the third session in December 1790, the necessary quorum appeared on time and the Senate got down to business as planned. With the new government firmly established and transportation and infrastructure gradually improving, summoning a quorum would prove less of a challenge for future Congresses.

 
Anyway, Desh notwithstanding.

The Filibuster was not something the Founders came up with. They created a Senate with the "previous question" rule that ended debate with a simple majority vote.

In 1806 the filibuster as we've come to know it was inadvertently created when they removed that rule, it wasn't until sometime in the 1830s that someone realized it and actually shut down discussion in the Senate with an actual filibuster that they could not end because there was no cloture rule. It wasn't until 1917 that it became such a problem that they created the first cloture rule, 2/3 vote of the Senate would end debate (nowadays that would be 67 votes, back then there were only 48 states and the vote was 64 votes). And in 1975 they changed it to 3/5 vote which made the vote 60 for cloture.
 

About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview​





Whether praised as the protector of political minorities from the tyranny of the majority, or attacked as a tool of partisan obstruction, the right of unlimited debate in the Senate, including the filibuster, has been a key component of the Senate’s unique role in the American political system.

The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”

As the number of filibusters grew in the 19th century, the Senate had no formal process to allow a majority to end debate and force a vote on legislation or nominations.

NOTE TO DESH: The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789; but it was not called a filibuster then.

While there were relatively few examples of the practice before the 1830s, the strategy of “talking a bill to death” was common enough by mid-century to gain a colorful label—the filibuster. Derived from a Dutch word for “freebooter” and the Spanish “filibusteros”—to describe the pirates then raiding Caribbean islands—the term began appearing in American legislative debates in the 1850s. “I saw my friend standing on the other side of the House filibustering,” commented Mississippi’s Albert Brown on January 3, 1853. A month later, North Carolina senator George Badger complained of “filibustering speeches," and the term became a permanent part of our political lexicon.
The earliest filibusters also led to the first demands for what we now call “cloture,” a method for ending debate and bringing a question to a vote. In 1841 the Democratic minority attempted to run out the clock on a bill to establish a national bank. Frustrated, Whig senator Henry Clay threatened to change Senate rules to limit debate. Clay’s proposal prompted others to warn of even longer filibusters to prevent any change to the rules. “I tell the Senator,” proclaimed a defiant William King of Alabama, “he may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the [entire] winter.” While some senators found filibusters to be objectionable, others exalted the right of unlimited debate as a key tradition of the Senate, vital to tempering the power of political majorities.

Filibusters became more frequent in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading to serious debate about changing Senate rules to curtail the practice. At that point the Senate had grown larger and busier, and the sheer amount of work to be done in each session meant that a filibustering senator could disrupt the progress of the body and gain concessions from senators who wanted to get their bills passed.
In 1917, with frustration mounting and at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, senators adopted a rule (Senate Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to invoke cloture and limit debate with a two-thirds majority vote. This rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, however, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote was difficult to obtain. Over the next four decades, the Senate managed to invoke cloture only five times. Filibusters proved to be particularly useful to southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching bills. Not until 1964 did the Senate successfully overcome a filibuster to pass a major civil rights bill. Nevertheless, a growing group of senators continued to be frustrated with the filibuster and pushed to change the cloture threshold. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the current 100 senators. Today, filibusters remain a part of Senate practice, although only on legislation. The Senate adopted new precedents in the 2010s to allow a simple majority to end debate on nominations.

The type of filibuster most familiar to Americans is the marathon speech by a small group of senators, or even a single senator, such as the filibuster staged by fictional senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. There have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. In 1917, for example, Wisconsin senator Robert La Follette used the filibuster to demand free speech during wartime. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. In the 1950s Oregon senator Wayne Morse famously used the filibuster to educate the public on issues he considered to be of national interest. South Carolina's Strom Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The record for the longest individual speech goes to New Jersey's Cory Booker, who spoke for 25 hours, 5 minutes, against the policies of the Donald J. Trump administration in April, 2025.


 
The founders obviously had use for the tactic

They used it
They literally couldn't use it, they made the "previous question" rule that ended debate with a simple majority vote. Basically the fundamental idea of the Filibuster was not made possible until the removal of the "previous question" rule in 1806.
 
It’s in our history from the very first meeting of the senate

Now exactly how will you get rid of it?
 
It’s in our history from the very first meeting of the senate

Now exactly how will you get rid of it?
It was not. The first meeting of the senate didn't even have a quorum. And they created a rule to end debate with a simple majority vote, exactly as it would be if we did the "nuclear option" today.
 
Back
Top