The Staggering Rise of the Filibuster

Reader Comments
Back to blog

The senate was designed by the founders to be a slower more deliberative portion of government. The sixty per cent rule seems about right. If 50.5% are for something and 49.5% are against, it is better to wait any until more agreement is reached. I would prefer it to be 2/3rds actually. It should be hard to pass laws that effect everyone. Change should not occur without a general consensus.

H. Hayne Crum, III of AL 11:59AM November 30, 2009

Yes end it . When we teke power next year we'll undo the socialist damage of the Moonbats now in control .

Josh Shwartz of MA 10:54PM November 28, 2009

Isn't the GOP goal to end the filibuster so that when they get back in power they can promote their radical social agenda that is opposed by the majority of Americans?

bakho of IN 10:26AM November 28, 2009

I agree that the filibuster should be brought to its classical roots, with unbathed, dehydrated and hoarse-voiced Senators talking in their adult-size diapers. They should be televised with concurrent commentary and analysis. This practice of non-filibuster-filibustering makes it too easy!

Daniel Kim of NM 9:09AM November 28, 2009

"Doesn't anyone see the mental illness, here?"
Yes we do. For the right, anything left of Reagan is socialist. Thank you for demonstrating.

JPS of DE 5:37PM November 27, 2009

Gene Cunningham:
"The article notes the massive use by the Democratic Congress in the Bush era..."
Say what? The filibusters from 2007 to 2008 were done by the Republicans.

Mithrandir of WA 5:12PM November 27, 2009

This is a joke

Joe the Plumber of GA 9:57AM November 27, 2009

The article notes the massive use by the Democratic Congress in the Bush era, then decides it may not be a good idea to change the rules, even though "progressives," i.e. socialists, are on the other side, since they will want to use it if the Republicans regain a majority. The rule, I guess, is just for Democrats to use.
Doesn't anyone see the mental illness, here?
I don't recall any interest in this topic during the Bush years? Odd. Too bad, we could have an energy policy.
There seems distress over calling quorum before a vote. Why is that?
For my part, let us actually have legislators attend sessions and debate. That would be terrific. People could see who the light weights really are. What goes on now is a joke. Dullards performing for a stationary camera and no audience. I prefer to watch the British Parliament.

Gene Cunningham of NY 1:40PM November 26, 2009

Anon in DC:
It does not take 67 votes to close debate on changes to Senate rules. Or rather, that rule is only a rule that is itself subject to rules. The ultimate authority is Article I, and the rules thereunder are majority vote.
The Senate could, if it wished, amend the rule about amending the rules and do so under majority rules. The Republicans would go ape$hit, but if someone could show a substantive distinction between their current ape$hittery and whatever potential ape$hittery they could add, I'd be worried. I'm not.

jfxgillis of MA 12:53PM November 26, 2009

I heard a rumor that the forced filibuster isn't possible anymore, that the rules now say that you can't actually have the filibuster, just the threat. Not sure if this is true or not, but if true, it would explain why the numbers have jumped in recent years.

Alex of NC 7:27PM November 25, 2009