Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TomDaisy

(2,120 posts)
Wed Jun 2, 2021, 01:55 PM Jun 2021

I don't understand why the GOP isn't being forced to do an actual talking filibuster

and you stay ON SUBJECT, with no breaks - bathroom or any other kinds.

Why are they still getting away with lazy filibuster votes??

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I don't understand why the GOP isn't being forced to do an actual talking filibuster (Original Post) TomDaisy Jun 2021 OP
The filibuster was changed in the 1970's USAFRetired_Liberal Jun 2021 #1
Because the GOP under Reagan fixed it that way. We Democrats used the filibuster the way it ... marble falls Jun 2021 #2
Because it would require a rules change leftieNanner Jun 2021 #3
Which is dumb because it's not like the rules on it hadn't changed before USAFRetired_Liberal Jun 2021 #4
 

USAFRetired_Liberal

(4,392 posts)
1. The filibuster was changed in the 1970's
Wed Jun 2, 2021, 01:59 PM
Jun 2021

Eliminated the need to stay and talk, and also eliminated the requirement for 2/3 of Senators present to 3/5 of ALL senators, yeah 2/3 is more than 3/5 so one would think lowering it to 3/5 would be better to end a filibuster, but the difference is that a senator had to be present in order to count in the 2/3.....for some reason, senators thought that these changes would end the gridlock and help to pass more bills, but it actually encouraged more gridlock and filibusters...I will try and find the reference.

Edit - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/us-government/history-of-the-filibuster

Changes in senate practice would eventually curb the drama of the filibuster. In the early 1970s, Senate leaders adopted changes that allowed more than one bill or matter to be pending on the floor at once. Before, with only one bill under consideration at a time, a filibuster could stop all other matters in the Senate—as long as a senator kept talking. Now, with multiple measures moving at once, leadership can simply set aside a controversial bill as theoretical “debate” continues, and move onto other matters in the meantime.

marble falls

(71,661 posts)
2. Because the GOP under Reagan fixed it that way. We Democrats used the filibuster the way it ...
Wed Jun 2, 2021, 02:00 PM
Jun 2021

... was meant to be used: to give cooler heads a chance to work out disagreement and achieve bipartisanship. It was not meant only to derail the other party.

leftieNanner

(16,152 posts)
3. Because it would require a rules change
Wed Jun 2, 2021, 02:00 PM
Jun 2021

and we have two Dem Senators who will not vote for ANY changes in the filibuster.

 

USAFRetired_Liberal

(4,392 posts)
4. Which is dumb because it's not like the rules on it hadn't changed before
Wed Jun 2, 2021, 02:06 PM
Jun 2021

So when the claim to be holding on to a “tradition”, they are lying or are clueless

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/us-government/history-of-the-filibuster

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I don't understand why th...