Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrnel
I grew up thinking the filibuster was an odd mechanism. It wasn't brought up often, it was always regarded in classes as (to be kind) "alternative politics." I don't recall it being used often even by the minority. Now it's all over the place. I've not researched this at all, but am interested in why the filibuster is coming to a head. What is different now? Is this a symptom of our failing cooperation or has something else changed?
|
Historically, senators acutally had to get up there and talk for hours and hours and the whole idea of a filibuster was somewhat more dramatic. Strom Thurmond once went on for 24 hours in opposition to a civil rights bill. Nobody really knows how he took a leak while he was up there. Now, however, when a senator wants to filibuster someone, they put a "hold" on it, which is essentially a threat to filibuster. Since the senate is very busy, debatable bills and motions on which holds have been placed are not usually brought up for consideration (if they were, the senator in question would speak continuously, and waste the body's time). One consequence of the hold system is that filibusters are somewhat easier to do, as you don't actually have to get up there and talk in most cases.
Quick point: we have to decide whether the senate is going to be a body of unlimited debate (like the senate), or a body where everything gets a clear up or down vote (like the house...sometimes). We can't really have both, as the principle of unlimited debate necessarily creates oddities like the filibuster and cloture rules.