Filibuster

:This article refers to the political act of filibustering, for other uses see Filibuster (disambiguation).

Filibusters in the U.S. Senate

Overview

Under Senate rules, the speech need not be relevant to the topic under discussion, and there have been cases in which a senator has undertaken part of a speech by reading from a telephone directory. Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes set by Wayne Morse (I-OR) in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation.

Related Topics:
Telephone directory - Strom Thurmond - 1957 - Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wayne Morse - 1953

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Preparations for a filibuster can be elaborate. Sometimes cots are brought into the hallways or cloakrooms for senators to sleep on. According to Newsweek, "They used to call it 'taking to the diaper,' a phrase that referred to the preparation undertaken by a prudent senator before an extended filibuster"http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3474915/. Strom Thurmond visited a steam room before his filibuster in order to dehydrate himself so he could drink without urinating. An aide stood by in the cloakroom with a pail in case of emergency.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Filibusters have become much more common in recent decades. Twice as many filibusters took place in the 1991-1992 legislative session as in the entire nineteenth century. (Frozen Republic, p.198)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

History

Early usage

In 1789, the First US Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806, Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years (see M. Gold & D. Gupta, 28 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 205 at 215), and should be eliminated. The Senate agreed, and thus the potentiality for a filibuster sprung into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.

Related Topics:
1789 - Senate - 1806 - Aaron Burr

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It remained a theoretical option until 1837. The first noted use of the filibuster was in an effort to prevent the attempt of Jacksonian Democrats - then in the majority - to expunge the Senate's 1834 censure of President Andrew Jackson (q.v. id. at 216; see also, S. Binder & S. Smith, Politics or Principle? Filibustering in the U.S. Senate at 33-34 n31 and 39).

Related Topics:
1837 - Jacksonian Democrats - 1834 - Censure - Andrew Jackson

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The 20th Century and the emergence of Cloture

In 1917 a rule allowing for the cloture of debate (ending a filibuster) was adopted. From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of those voting.

Related Topics:
1917 - Cloture - 1949

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In 1946 Southern Democrats blocked a vote on a bill proposed by Dennis Chavez of New Mexico (S. 101) that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the work place. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chavez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. As civil rights loomed on the Senate agenda, this rule was revised in 1949 to allow cloture on any measure or motion by two-thirds of the entire Senate membership; in 1959 the threshold was restored to two-thirds of those voting. After a series of filibusters led by Southern Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate in 1975 revised its cloture rule so that three-fifths of the Senate (usually 60 senators) could limit debate. Despite this rule, the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster remains an important tactic that allows a large minority to affect legislation.

Related Topics:
Dennis Chavez - FEPC - 1959 - 1960s - Civil rights - 1975

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Current practice

Filibusters do not occur in legislative bodies in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules, such as the United States House of Representatives. The House did not adopt rules restricting debate until 1842, and the filibuster was used in that body before that time.

Related Topics:
Legislative bodies - United States House of Representatives - 1842

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In current practice, Senate rules permit procedural 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. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Budget bills are governed under special rules called "Reconciliation" which do not allow filibusters. Reconciliation theoretically only applies to bills that would reduce the budget deficit, but it has been used for bills that are only tangentially related to budget issues.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else to the agenda. Thurmond's attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

Related Topics:
Agenda - Lyndon Johnson

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

According to a Historical Moments Essay on the U.S. Senate website, the Republican Party was the first to initiate a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The filibuster today

In 2005, some Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), responding to the Democrats' filibustering of some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of a rules change that would eliminate filibusters on judicial nominees. Senator Trent Lott, the senior Republican senator from Mississippi, named this plan the nuclear option. Republican leaders later referred to the plan as the constitutional option, though opponents and some supporters of the plan continue to use the term nuclear option. The filibuster battle raged on the Senate floor for much of May 2005. Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) furiously opposed the changes, claiming they would erode traditional minority rights in government. The Republicans, however, wanted judicial nominees to have a clear-cut vote – either yes or no.

Related Topics:
2005 - Republican - Senate Majority Leader - Bill Frist - TN - Democrats - President - George W. Bush - Nuclear option - Senate Minority Leader - Harry Reid - NV

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On May 23, 14 senators – seven Democrats and seven Republicans – led by John McCain (R-AZ) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) brokered a deal to allow three of Bush's nominees a vote on the Senate floor while leaving two others subject to a filibuster. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option. In summary, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen and two other controversial nominees, who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees. Two other controversial judicial nominees, picked by president George W Bush, however, are still subject to filibusters. "Extraordinary circumstances" was apparently not defined in advance. Thus, meaning whatever the Democratic seven desire it to mean at any given time, any judical nomination can be blocked by simply declaring circumstances "extraordinary". This derails the "nuclear option", while essentially allowing the left to block any nominee they wish, at any time, for any reason, with very few exceptions. It is unclear whether the Republican seven were naive, desired this very outcome, or some combination of the two. However, it is possible that if Democrats fail to apply the same standard by which a vast majority of Republicans supported Clinton appointees, the Republican seven may decide that the Democrats are acting in "bad faith", and respond by supporting the nuclear option.

Related Topics:
May 23 - 14 senators - John McCain - AZ - Robert Byrd - WV - Priscilla Owen - President - George W Bush

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~