NYT: How the Filibuster Became the Rule

[jaysunb]

The filibuster may be well established in the popular consciousness — think of long-winded senators speechifying for days. But because modern Senate rules allow lawmakers to avoid the spectacle of pontificating by merely threatening the act, filibusters and the efforts to overcome them are being used more frequently, and on more issues, than at any other point in history.

So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.

For policy making, this is the legislative equivalent of gum on a shoe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/weekinreview/02herszenhorn.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. 60 votes in the senate is also the norm anymore since 2006.

[sam sarrha]

2. i say make them read the phone book for a week an let CSpan show what deviant ass's they are about

vets funding and children's health care.. screw em

[MasonJar]

3. The dems need to insist on an actual filibuster; the GOPers treated them

quite callously until 07. Now they are blaming dems for actions they considered A-OK. Let them spend hours filibustering; they deserve it!!!!!!!!!