(no subject)

[winterbadger]

In reading this article about a series of pro forma votes in the Senate, I revisited a question I've wondered about before: how much support is there for maintaining the filibuster in the Senate rules? Despite what many think, this is not a measure written into the Constitution as a protection of minority rights.

What do you think? Should it be eliminated, or should it be retained?



Editorial wince: "Except now, the Seante not usually require the stand-up-and-talk part." Really? Really. Someone at the Post can't proof better than that?

Comments

Filibuster vs. Cloture

[chris brantley (from livejournal.com)]

Just wanted to note that there is no "filibuster" rule in the Senate Standing Rules either. The key rule is Rule 22, which concerns cloture. Invoking cloture limits an individual Senator's floor time on an issue to one hour and total consideration to 30 hours...which effectively cuts off any filibusters after a fixed amount of time. It's sort of a preemptive strike to prevent filibusters, as well as a tool to bring long and often circulate debates to a close. Since it takes 3/5s of Senators to agree...it is also the reason why controversial legislation often requires 60 votes for passage.

Re: Filibuster vs. Cloture

[winterbadger]

Well, yes, I stand corrected. The rule in question is that of cloture. But if cloture could be invoked by a simple majority, it would eliminate filibusters *of legislation that would otherwise be passed*.