History of the Filibuster?

[nancylebov]

I'm aware of the current filibuster situation in regards to judicial nominees, and the earlier history of filibusters to block civil rights, but what was happening with it in between?

Can anyone recommend some theoretical work about the function of the filibuster? Or is it simply a sort of informal supermajority requirement for matters where there's a strongly opposed minority?

Comments

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

As you might expect, Wikipedia has a brief history of the

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a href+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/filibuster>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

As you might expect, Wikipedia has a brief history of the <a href+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster>filibuster</a>, which covers how it works--a senator, or possibly group of senators hold the session hostage by talking and not stopping, unless you can come up with enough votes for cloture to get the jabbermouth yanked from the floor. What I find fascinating is that the filibuster-inflictor doesn't have to talk about the issue that is supposedly under debate. So long as his (or her) mouth is moving and words are coming out of it, it counts as debate.

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

Well, damn, that was supposed to be a link:
Wikipedia on filibusters

[madfilkentist]

One blog entry which I've seen claims it now goes beyond that, and that what we have are "Arthur Dent filibusters," where it's agreed that the filibusterer (is that the word?) could talk on for hours, so they might as well all save themselves the trouble and go off to the pub.

I don't know if that's true, but I love the term.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Fidelioscabinent, thanks for reminding me of wikipedia.

It does seem that the mere threat of a filibuster is enough sometimes--the official name is a procedural filibuster.

It looks as though filibusters are in fact an informal supermajority requirement. I suppose they're somewhat worth having since you don't always know what matters ought to require supermajorities, but then, I'm pretty mucy a chaotic.

I don't know what a filibuster costs the people who propose it--there's got to be some reason why filibusters aren't more common.

And I recommend the wikipedia article--it's brief, and the section on a Canadian filibuster is entertaining.

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

Well, for one thing, staging a filibuster is highly inconvenient annoying to all the other Senators, and I suspect that it's a great way to pour your politcal capital down the drain. After all, everyone has to stick around (or drop whatever else it was they were doing and get down to the Senate chambers) in case there's a chance of a cloture vote to shut the filibuster up. It seems, at least in this past century, to have been treated a a weapon of last resort--I don't know how often it was used in the nineteenth century.

[avram]

Are you aware that one of your senators is a fence-sitter on this matter?

Arlen Specter (PA) - (202) 224-4254

You can give his office a call and let him know how you want him to vote.