![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Filibuster was copied or moved into Filibuster in the United States with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I have serious questions about some of the article content relating to cloture. According to the CRS report Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate:
filibusters and cloture . . . are not always as closely linked in practice as they are in popular conception. Even when opponents of a measure resort to extended debate or other tactics of delay, supporters may not decide to seek cloture (although this situation seems to have been more common in earlier decades than today). In recent times, conversely, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster.
While the article makes a token acknowledgment that the relationship between filibuster and cloture is not so direct, it still tries to suggest that the relationship is a strong one, while not actually making a statement to that effect. Others ( Talking Points Memo, McClatchy, Daily Kos) have done the same, again, without actually stating what the relationship is. The article even makes the claim that "In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters", but if you look up the citations, it provides numbers for cloture votes, not filibusters.
The problem is that it is difficult to quantify filibusters because there are no clear rules that can be used to determine whether a filibuster is occurring. It is not as if a Senator starts a filibuster by making a "filibuster motion". According the the CRS report:
For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.
I have no doubt that there is a positive correlation between filibusters and cloture. However, the article should not be intimating that there is a direct relationship, even if others do so. If there is a reliable source that has made a specific claim about how they are related, then let us quote that source. If not, we should not be conflating the two and presenting cloture figures as if they are a reliable proxy for filibusters.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
-- JPMcGrath ( talk) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters.[14] In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters.[14][15] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008,[16] though cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters.[3]
The perceived threat of a filibuster has tremendously increased since the 1960s, as suggested by the increase in cloture motions filed.<ref> Daily Kos</ref> A motion for cloture is filed not only to overcome filibusters in progress, but also to preempt ones that are only anticipated.<ref name=crs/> In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven votes on cloture.[14] By the first decade of the 21st century, the number of votes on cloture per Senate term had risen to no fewer than 49 filibusters.[14][15] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes, reaching 112 at the end of 2008.[3]
However much effect filibusters have on the operations of the Senate, perhaps a more pervasive effect is attributable to filibusters that have not taken place—at least not yet. In many instances, cloture motions may be filed not to overcome filibusters in progress, but to preempt ones that are only anticipated. (Emphasis added.)
Cloture is sometimes sought not for the purpose of overcoming a filibuster by debate, but primarily to trigger the requirement for germaneness of amendments. [...] In this way, its opponents can dispose of the [non-germane] amendment adversely without ever having to vote on it, or even on a motion to table it—but only, of course, if they can mobilize three-fifths of the Senate to vote for cloture. This possibility, which is more than hypothetical, illustrates that not every cloture vote takes place to overcome a filibuster that is already in progress. (Emphasis added).
I boldly moved this page from "Filibuster in the United States" because using that title meant that the only meaning of the word "filibuster" in the United States is the use of unlimited debate in the United States Senate to delay or kill legislation or nominations. That is not the case. The word means here, as elsewhere, "the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly". The Senate is not the only place where filibusters occur in the United States, and the particular form discussed is not the only method used in the Senate. On my talk page, User:ShinyGee suggested that somehow the title "Filibuster (United States Senate)" suggests that there should be a corresponding "Filibuster (United States House of Representatives)". I find that wholly unconvincing, but even if it were true, that implication is far weaker than the implication from his preferred title that this form of the filibuster is the only used in the United States. I am willing to work on a third option, but "Filibuster in the United States" is unacceptable. - Rrius ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The following messages were copied from User talk:Rrius. -- JPMcGrath ( talk) 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick point, given that you recently moved Filibuster in the United States to Filibuster (United States Senate).
If you look at the discussion in Talk:Filibuster#Proposal to split off United States section into its own article you'll see that I had originally proposed the same title that you have chosen. JPMcGrath ( talk) had pointed out that "naming it Filibuster (United States Senate) would suggest that there might be a Filibuster (United States House) article, which is certainly not needed." I agreed. Furthermore, the page itself on Filibuster indicates that the article is about the parliamentary procedure and to see Filibuster (disambiguation) for other uses.
Naming the page Filibuster in the United States makes more sense, as pointed out by Iota ( talk) when the page was first moved: "The meaning of 'filibuster' in the U.S. is the same as elsewhere. Moving to be consistent with other articles such as Impeachment in the United States."
I think your move should be reverted. — Shiny G 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
First, I'm not talking about military usage. The word has parliamentary meaning in the United States beyond the sense referring to unlimited debate and cloture. Writing an article all about that sort of filibuster and then calling it "Filibuster in the United States" clearly asserts that what this article is talking about is the only thing that constitutes a legislative filibuster in the United States.
Second, saying "since the primary topic filibuster has the same meaning in the United States as elsewhere, we are not dealing with a disambiguation" misses the point. Many people believe that in the United States, the topic of this article is the only thing that can be called a filibuster. I came across someone with just that misapprehension in a discussion at another article in just the last week.
Third, the article does not discuss the use of filibusters in the House. It mentions that early in the republic, filibusters were possible in the House. This is the only sum total of the article's treatment of House filibusters:
“ | In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes. | ” |
That is hardly enough to claim that this article is about anything other than the Senate filibuster. At best, it gives some contour to the discussion of the unlimited-debate filibuster; at worst, it is out of place. In any event, it is absurd to claim it "deals" with House filibusters since it does not even attempt to modern delay tactics. Frankly, the comparison to House practice is no more (actually less) than I would expect in an article about the the unlimited-debate filibuster.
Fourth, as it stands, this article is quite long. Adding enough on House procedures to justify a generic "in the United States" would make it still longer, let alone adding a discussion of practices in state and local government.
Fifth, the article does not even fully deal with Senate filibusters. For example, demanding the full reading of an amendment is a filibuster tactic. For that matter, it is a tactic available in many American legislatures, be they governmental or not.
Sixth, I don't accept that this is a geographically relevant article. It is not about filibuster in the United States or even in the United States Congress. The example of Impeachment in the United States was mentioned above. That article deals with the procedures in both houses of Congress and in the states. That is very different from what this article does. Aside from that one paragraph, the entire article is about one form of filibuster present in one legislative body in the United States. Hardly "geographically relevant".
Seventh, your point about WP:Precision isn't coming through. When people in the US talk about filibusters, they usually mean what this article is about. As a result, an article called "Filibuster" is appropriate. Because it is not the main page on the topic, a disambiguator is necessary. Since what it refers to the Senate's main form of filibuster, "(United States Senate)" is the most appropriate.
Finally, I said I'm willing to seek a third way and since no one else is willing to suggest anything, how about this. The article is just about the unlimited-debate/cloture filibuster used in the Senate. That leads to two obvious choices: "Debate in the United States Senate" and "Cloture in the United States Senate". - Rrius ( talk) 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above, in Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate#Page name, presents two views on what this article should be about:
So the time has come to discuss the goal of this article, and what we envision as its ultimate structure.
I would love to read your comments. — Shiny G 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Rrius has made a strong and compelling argument—both in this section and in the Page name section above—for option #2. I would love to work with Rrius toward making this article live up to the Filibuster (United States Senate) title.
The greater Filibuster in the United States project can be set aside until such time when an article exists that does it justice. It seems to me like Rrius, JPMcGrath and ShinyGee would all be willing to work toward incubating that separate article, though perhaps not right away. —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC). — Shiny G 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Since I got no response to my concerns, I am cleaning this mess up by moving the House of Representatives material to the Filibuster article. Now the title of this article describes what is in the article. -- JPMcGrath ( talk) 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see where ref #23 (Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate) supports the statement that "In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.". Either this should be deleted, or there should be some sort of explanation as to how this rule change came about. (If this merely refers to the reluctance of the Majority Leader to spend the Senate's time on a filibuster battle, then the article should say that instead.) Bjartmarr ( talk) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why the second paragraph of the intro part of the article is included as part of the intro. While it makes sense to discuss (in the article as a whole) the fact that there is a movement or has been a desire to change the rules to eliminate filibusters, and the second paragraph of the intro would fit in in that part of the article, in the intro it seems out of context, and its inclusion there seems somewhat political. The article hasn't (at that point) discussed the historical origins of the rule, or any of its history really. And the second paragraph isn't presented in the context of the social movement to modify the rule. (An unknowing reader would not be aware that there is a great deal of controversy over the filibuster, and a political movement hoping to abolish it, before being introduced here to the idea of abolishing it.)
In what other case does a Wikipedia article introduce the basic info about a thing, and then (in the same main intro) explain how that thing could be abolished? Even the U.S. Dept. of Education, which actually had a movement afoot to abolish it, doesn't have instructions on how to abolish it in its main introduction. Nor should it. I think the same is the case with most other things. Explaining how it could be ended is not part of introducing it.
I move that that paragraph (below) be taken out of the intro--and out of the selected text that gets used in the main filibuster article--and instead be included lower in the article body, in the context of "efforts to end or abolish the filibuster"--probably in the "Current U.S. practice" section.
This is the paragraph I am referring to:
According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from three fifths of Senators would be required to break the filibuster filibustering a bill to remove filibusters.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. (Proponents also refer to it as the constitutional option.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelance08 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there really a major benefit in this transclusion monster? It's not really that much text to keep updated in the main article -- it seems to cause more confusion and trouble than it's worth. I'll undo it soonish unless there's major objection. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 13:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Johnson not Mansfield was leader in 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.3.98 ( talk) 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that the minority has threatened to filibuster a bill in years. Effectively the limited amount of time the Senate has to consider bills, and the increasing complexity of the federal government, means that filibusters are now relegated to a bygone era. 71.241.204.25 ( talk) 00:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The Recent U.S. Senate history section indicates that there have been over 100 cloture votes in each of the last three sessions. (2007-2009, 2009-2011, 2011-2013). So, your information appears to be wildly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.124.180 ( talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph about Senator Mitch McConnell's self-filibuster (the second-to-last paragraph under “Recent U.S. Senate history”) is unclear. Please provide a step-by-step explanation of how Senator MacConnell intended to accomplish something by introducing a bill to raise the threshold to pass a bill into law to 60%, and then filibustering his own bill? Bwrs ( talk) 18:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've added some more details to the "January 2013 filibuster reform" section to provide more information about the changes that have been introduced and also those that were originally proposed. I'm letting editors here know I've made this addition because I work for the The Heritage Foundation and this addition mentions the foundation's sister organization, Heritage Action for America. I've aimed to write this neutrally, but others may want to look at what I've added and make changes as needed. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Editors following this page may be interested in this RfC about the "nuclear option" for changing Senate rules/procedures. Mathew5000 ( talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I see that there is now data available for the 112th Senate session (2011-2012): http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
I don't have the software (or knowledge) to create an SVG file so I hope someone else can do this. Randy Schutt ( talk) 01:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you create a data table .... The graph can be made in Excel - or similar - and changed to an svg file — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.107.204 ( talk) 01:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The data on this page only seems to go up to 2008. About 5 years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.107.204 ( talk) 01:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV, we do not need opinion pieces by columnists and advocacy pieces by advocacy organizations, given that hundreds of straight news sources have been reporting about the recent "nuclear option" in the US Senate. Even if we were to balance both sides and provide inline attribution, the plentiful reliable sources make that unnecessary. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a much better source, thanks. It might be worthwhile to deemphasize the partisan assertions, and go with something even more neutral:
That the D.C. Circuit does not need more judges, though, is hardly clear. Both sides sling around cherry-picked statistics, with Republicans emphasizing raw case numbers and Democrats stressing the court's comparatively large number of complex agency cases. As explained, though, by a representative of the federal court's governing body, there is currently no reliable statistical method to compare the workloads of the courts of appeals.
This article mentions that a DC Circuit vacancy was transferred to the 9th circuit in 2007, so apparently Republicans like Bush did have this type of concern. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The administration/majority party has choice: either present a candidate for a cloture vote or withdraw before the vote. The Obama administration chose to take the vote which takes time. The Bush administration did not. Whence the large amount of Obama nominess (79) that faced cloture votes. Bush presented 38. It's not like Bush got more through. Obama's current success rate for judicial nominations was 30 out of 42 to date. Bush in his whole term got 35 of 52. Also the issue with the DC court is it's expansion, not filling vacancies. "Vacancies" were created to pack it. I believe that the vacancies were created before Obama and the cloture rule meant Bush didn't bother with appointments. The deal brokered in 2005 let non-packing appointees to pass if they were well-qualified. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/harry-reid-filibuster-government-shutdown-97263.html
Senator Cruz's Filibuster lasted over 21 hours, making it the fourth longest in history. Shouldn't it be included in the longest list? 64.75.76.2 ( talk) 18:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In recent years it seems to be more common for politicians to use the senate floor to make long speeches which invariably get labelled filibusters when they are in fact just long speeches. A filibuster is only a filibuster when it delays legislation. [1]
Please be wary of "filibusters" from politicians that are running for president. Sanders, Paul, and Cruz have all given impressively long speeches, but unless they delay legislation they haven't filibustered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.76.102 ( talk) 16:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Sen. Rand Paul’s latest filibuster is a filibuster
[5]
Guck14 (
talk)
18:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
[6](UTC)
References
There needs to be an explanation of just how a successful filibuster actual blocks a vote, rather than just delaying it (at most a few days evidently). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.191.126 ( talk) 11:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment. This is the reason I came to read this article, and I have no idea how it works. I also don't understand why the list of longest filibusters includes only those by individuals. There have been 50+ day filibusters by multiple senators which is a significant piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.118.62.150 ( talk) 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
How does the filibuster shape the character of the Senate? Has the existence of the filibuster been good for the country, or bad? Looking back, what filibusters accomplished something good? Bad?
The filibuster is gradually being curtailed. How will our country be different when it's gone completely? deisenbe ( talk) 15:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
To add to this article: exactly what a "virtual filibuster" is, how it is used, and at least one or two examples of its actual past usage. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 18:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence of the Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster is tagged {{ fv}}, and I think this is because of the assertion reading, "but only on the first day of the session", following the comma there. I'm no expert here but, out of curiosity, I looked for clarification. and on page 266 here (click that page number there), it appears to me that this is likely related to a decision made in 1969 by VP Humphrey which is described there. It says there, though, that the decision was reversed. My guess is that practice related to this has changed since 1969, and that this tagged sentence needs to be either clarified or truncated at the comma. As I say, I'm no expert here; could someone who knows a lot more about this than I please take a look at this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I added language to the article saying, "[...] Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, proposed to filibuster the organizing resolution [...]". A little later, someone (I haven't checked the edit history) added the language "[...] McConnell officially announced that he would hand over control of the 50-50 Senate to Democrats." I was trying to stick to the neutral point of view on a topic of partisan disagreement, and I guess so was the other editor. However, at this point the whole paragraph, taken as a whole, seems to have swung in the opposite direction and taken on a non-neutral pro-McConnell point of view. Accordingly, I'm planning to change these snippets to "[...] Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, threatened to filibuster the organizing resolution [...]" and "[...] McConnell abandoned his threat of a filibuster." Please let me know what you think. Airbornemihir ( talk) 21:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
perhaps this should be included in the article?
Senators from the American West were alarmed by this proposal which would give the Chinese in America the right to vote. Senator William Stewart, a Republican from Nevada, threatened to filibuster the entire proposal if such an amendment was included. Senate procedures at the time allowed no override of filibusters by a 2/3 vote until 1917 so any Senator could effectively stall proceedings for as long as they wanted to speak. Senator George Williams, an Oregon Republican, and ironically one of the Republican leaders in passing the 15th Amendment that prohibited the United States from denying the vote based upon "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" then proposed to add this amendment to the bill, "But this act shall not be construed to authorize the naturalization of people born in the Chinese empire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This article needs to be rewritten in its entirety. What a hotchpotch of opinions and cherrypicked nonsense.
Don't use Wikipedia articles as a baseball bat in US politics. When in doubt - don't write whatever "perspective" you "feel" is needed. Use sources, use vetted definitions - or/and get out.
Poetically, the filibuster article is a pièce du filibuster.
Arcsoda ( talk) 11:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Ringwiss The rewrite of the lead section, particularly the first paragraph, is not an accessible overview of what a filibuster is. A person who is visiting the article and simply wants to know what a filibuster is cannot easily understand what it is with the current text. The explanation also requires reading the two paragraphs instead of one like they could with the previous revision.
A filibuster is the simply fact that 60 votes are required to pass a bill instead of 50. It should not take until the end of the second paragraph to explain this as well introduce other facts like "Rule XXII" which are unimportant to the understanding of the concept.
Could the first paragraph be switched to the previous version? Lectrician1 ( talk) 15:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The previous version makes this even more clear compared to the language of this version... Lectrician1 ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)A filibuster is the act of continuing to debate or otherwise use procedural techniques in order to block a vote.
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate allows the Senate to vote to limit debate by invoking cloture on the pending question. In most cases, however, this requires a majority of three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn
Shouldn't those go inside the references (at the bottom) themselves instead of in the page itself? : 2 just looks unslightly. Anyone explicitly mind if I just replace every single template:rp with an page number into the reference itself? I seriously don't see how this helps the casual reader, its just visual clutter to me. DarmaniLink ( talk) 07:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Filibuster was copied or moved into Filibuster in the United States with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I have serious questions about some of the article content relating to cloture. According to the CRS report Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate:
filibusters and cloture . . . are not always as closely linked in practice as they are in popular conception. Even when opponents of a measure resort to extended debate or other tactics of delay, supporters may not decide to seek cloture (although this situation seems to have been more common in earlier decades than today). In recent times, conversely, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster.
While the article makes a token acknowledgment that the relationship between filibuster and cloture is not so direct, it still tries to suggest that the relationship is a strong one, while not actually making a statement to that effect. Others ( Talking Points Memo, McClatchy, Daily Kos) have done the same, again, without actually stating what the relationship is. The article even makes the claim that "In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters", but if you look up the citations, it provides numbers for cloture votes, not filibusters.
The problem is that it is difficult to quantify filibusters because there are no clear rules that can be used to determine whether a filibuster is occurring. It is not as if a Senator starts a filibuster by making a "filibuster motion". According the the CRS report:
For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.
I have no doubt that there is a positive correlation between filibusters and cloture. However, the article should not be intimating that there is a direct relationship, even if others do so. If there is a reliable source that has made a specific claim about how they are related, then let us quote that source. If not, we should not be conflating the two and presenting cloture figures as if they are a reliable proxy for filibusters.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
-- JPMcGrath ( talk) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters.[14] In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters.[14][15] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008,[16] though cloture votes are increasingly used for purposes unrelated to filibusters.[3]
The perceived threat of a filibuster has tremendously increased since the 1960s, as suggested by the increase in cloture motions filed.<ref> Daily Kos</ref> A motion for cloture is filed not only to overcome filibusters in progress, but also to preempt ones that are only anticipated.<ref name=crs/> In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven votes on cloture.[14] By the first decade of the 21st century, the number of votes on cloture per Senate term had risen to no fewer than 49 filibusters.[14][15] The 110th Congress broke the record for cloture votes, reaching 112 at the end of 2008.[3]
However much effect filibusters have on the operations of the Senate, perhaps a more pervasive effect is attributable to filibusters that have not taken place—at least not yet. In many instances, cloture motions may be filed not to overcome filibusters in progress, but to preempt ones that are only anticipated. (Emphasis added.)
Cloture is sometimes sought not for the purpose of overcoming a filibuster by debate, but primarily to trigger the requirement for germaneness of amendments. [...] In this way, its opponents can dispose of the [non-germane] amendment adversely without ever having to vote on it, or even on a motion to table it—but only, of course, if they can mobilize three-fifths of the Senate to vote for cloture. This possibility, which is more than hypothetical, illustrates that not every cloture vote takes place to overcome a filibuster that is already in progress. (Emphasis added).
I boldly moved this page from "Filibuster in the United States" because using that title meant that the only meaning of the word "filibuster" in the United States is the use of unlimited debate in the United States Senate to delay or kill legislation or nominations. That is not the case. The word means here, as elsewhere, "the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly". The Senate is not the only place where filibusters occur in the United States, and the particular form discussed is not the only method used in the Senate. On my talk page, User:ShinyGee suggested that somehow the title "Filibuster (United States Senate)" suggests that there should be a corresponding "Filibuster (United States House of Representatives)". I find that wholly unconvincing, but even if it were true, that implication is far weaker than the implication from his preferred title that this form of the filibuster is the only used in the United States. I am willing to work on a third option, but "Filibuster in the United States" is unacceptable. - Rrius ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The following messages were copied from User talk:Rrius. -- JPMcGrath ( talk) 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick point, given that you recently moved Filibuster in the United States to Filibuster (United States Senate).
If you look at the discussion in Talk:Filibuster#Proposal to split off United States section into its own article you'll see that I had originally proposed the same title that you have chosen. JPMcGrath ( talk) had pointed out that "naming it Filibuster (United States Senate) would suggest that there might be a Filibuster (United States House) article, which is certainly not needed." I agreed. Furthermore, the page itself on Filibuster indicates that the article is about the parliamentary procedure and to see Filibuster (disambiguation) for other uses.
Naming the page Filibuster in the United States makes more sense, as pointed out by Iota ( talk) when the page was first moved: "The meaning of 'filibuster' in the U.S. is the same as elsewhere. Moving to be consistent with other articles such as Impeachment in the United States."
I think your move should be reverted. — Shiny G 22:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
First, I'm not talking about military usage. The word has parliamentary meaning in the United States beyond the sense referring to unlimited debate and cloture. Writing an article all about that sort of filibuster and then calling it "Filibuster in the United States" clearly asserts that what this article is talking about is the only thing that constitutes a legislative filibuster in the United States.
Second, saying "since the primary topic filibuster has the same meaning in the United States as elsewhere, we are not dealing with a disambiguation" misses the point. Many people believe that in the United States, the topic of this article is the only thing that can be called a filibuster. I came across someone with just that misapprehension in a discussion at another article in just the last week.
Third, the article does not discuss the use of filibusters in the House. It mentions that early in the republic, filibusters were possible in the House. This is the only sum total of the article's treatment of House filibusters:
“ | In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes. | ” |
That is hardly enough to claim that this article is about anything other than the Senate filibuster. At best, it gives some contour to the discussion of the unlimited-debate filibuster; at worst, it is out of place. In any event, it is absurd to claim it "deals" with House filibusters since it does not even attempt to modern delay tactics. Frankly, the comparison to House practice is no more (actually less) than I would expect in an article about the the unlimited-debate filibuster.
Fourth, as it stands, this article is quite long. Adding enough on House procedures to justify a generic "in the United States" would make it still longer, let alone adding a discussion of practices in state and local government.
Fifth, the article does not even fully deal with Senate filibusters. For example, demanding the full reading of an amendment is a filibuster tactic. For that matter, it is a tactic available in many American legislatures, be they governmental or not.
Sixth, I don't accept that this is a geographically relevant article. It is not about filibuster in the United States or even in the United States Congress. The example of Impeachment in the United States was mentioned above. That article deals with the procedures in both houses of Congress and in the states. That is very different from what this article does. Aside from that one paragraph, the entire article is about one form of filibuster present in one legislative body in the United States. Hardly "geographically relevant".
Seventh, your point about WP:Precision isn't coming through. When people in the US talk about filibusters, they usually mean what this article is about. As a result, an article called "Filibuster" is appropriate. Because it is not the main page on the topic, a disambiguator is necessary. Since what it refers to the Senate's main form of filibuster, "(United States Senate)" is the most appropriate.
Finally, I said I'm willing to seek a third way and since no one else is willing to suggest anything, how about this. The article is just about the unlimited-debate/cloture filibuster used in the Senate. That leads to two obvious choices: "Debate in the United States Senate" and "Cloture in the United States Senate". - Rrius ( talk) 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above, in Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate#Page name, presents two views on what this article should be about:
So the time has come to discuss the goal of this article, and what we envision as its ultimate structure.
I would love to read your comments. — Shiny G 03:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Rrius has made a strong and compelling argument—both in this section and in the Page name section above—for option #2. I would love to work with Rrius toward making this article live up to the Filibuster (United States Senate) title.
The greater Filibuster in the United States project can be set aside until such time when an article exists that does it justice. It seems to me like Rrius, JPMcGrath and ShinyGee would all be willing to work toward incubating that separate article, though perhaps not right away. —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC). — Shiny G 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Since I got no response to my concerns, I am cleaning this mess up by moving the House of Representatives material to the Filibuster article. Now the title of this article describes what is in the article. -- JPMcGrath ( talk) 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see where ref #23 (Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate) supports the statement that "In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.". Either this should be deleted, or there should be some sort of explanation as to how this rule change came about. (If this merely refers to the reluctance of the Majority Leader to spend the Senate's time on a filibuster battle, then the article should say that instead.) Bjartmarr ( talk) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why the second paragraph of the intro part of the article is included as part of the intro. While it makes sense to discuss (in the article as a whole) the fact that there is a movement or has been a desire to change the rules to eliminate filibusters, and the second paragraph of the intro would fit in in that part of the article, in the intro it seems out of context, and its inclusion there seems somewhat political. The article hasn't (at that point) discussed the historical origins of the rule, or any of its history really. And the second paragraph isn't presented in the context of the social movement to modify the rule. (An unknowing reader would not be aware that there is a great deal of controversy over the filibuster, and a political movement hoping to abolish it, before being introduced here to the idea of abolishing it.)
In what other case does a Wikipedia article introduce the basic info about a thing, and then (in the same main intro) explain how that thing could be abolished? Even the U.S. Dept. of Education, which actually had a movement afoot to abolish it, doesn't have instructions on how to abolish it in its main introduction. Nor should it. I think the same is the case with most other things. Explaining how it could be ended is not part of introducing it.
I move that that paragraph (below) be taken out of the intro--and out of the selected text that gets used in the main filibuster article--and instead be included lower in the article body, in the context of "efforts to end or abolish the filibuster"--probably in the "Current U.S. practice" section.
This is the paragraph I am referring to:
According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, and in this case votes from three fifths of Senators would be required to break the filibuster filibustering a bill to remove filibusters.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option. (Proponents also refer to it as the constitutional option.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelance08 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there really a major benefit in this transclusion monster? It's not really that much text to keep updated in the main article -- it seems to cause more confusion and trouble than it's worth. I'll undo it soonish unless there's major objection. bou·le·var·dier ( talk) 13:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Johnson not Mansfield was leader in 1957. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.3.98 ( talk) 05:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that the minority has threatened to filibuster a bill in years. Effectively the limited amount of time the Senate has to consider bills, and the increasing complexity of the federal government, means that filibusters are now relegated to a bygone era. 71.241.204.25 ( talk) 00:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The Recent U.S. Senate history section indicates that there have been over 100 cloture votes in each of the last three sessions. (2007-2009, 2009-2011, 2011-2013). So, your information appears to be wildly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.124.180 ( talk) 15:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph about Senator Mitch McConnell's self-filibuster (the second-to-last paragraph under “Recent U.S. Senate history”) is unclear. Please provide a step-by-step explanation of how Senator MacConnell intended to accomplish something by introducing a bill to raise the threshold to pass a bill into law to 60%, and then filibustering his own bill? Bwrs ( talk) 18:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've added some more details to the "January 2013 filibuster reform" section to provide more information about the changes that have been introduced and also those that were originally proposed. I'm letting editors here know I've made this addition because I work for the The Heritage Foundation and this addition mentions the foundation's sister organization, Heritage Action for America. I've aimed to write this neutrally, but others may want to look at what I've added and make changes as needed. Thanks! Thurmant ( talk) 17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Editors following this page may be interested in this RfC about the "nuclear option" for changing Senate rules/procedures. Mathew5000 ( talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I see that there is now data available for the 112th Senate session (2011-2012): http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
I don't have the software (or knowledge) to create an SVG file so I hope someone else can do this. Randy Schutt ( talk) 01:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you create a data table .... The graph can be made in Excel - or similar - and changed to an svg file — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.107.204 ( talk) 01:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The data on this page only seems to go up to 2008. About 5 years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.107.204 ( talk) 01:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:Reliable sources and WP:NPOV, we do not need opinion pieces by columnists and advocacy pieces by advocacy organizations, given that hundreds of straight news sources have been reporting about the recent "nuclear option" in the US Senate. Even if we were to balance both sides and provide inline attribution, the plentiful reliable sources make that unnecessary. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a much better source, thanks. It might be worthwhile to deemphasize the partisan assertions, and go with something even more neutral:
That the D.C. Circuit does not need more judges, though, is hardly clear. Both sides sling around cherry-picked statistics, with Republicans emphasizing raw case numbers and Democrats stressing the court's comparatively large number of complex agency cases. As explained, though, by a representative of the federal court's governing body, there is currently no reliable statistical method to compare the workloads of the courts of appeals.
This article mentions that a DC Circuit vacancy was transferred to the 9th circuit in 2007, so apparently Republicans like Bush did have this type of concern. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The administration/majority party has choice: either present a candidate for a cloture vote or withdraw before the vote. The Obama administration chose to take the vote which takes time. The Bush administration did not. Whence the large amount of Obama nominess (79) that faced cloture votes. Bush presented 38. It's not like Bush got more through. Obama's current success rate for judicial nominations was 30 out of 42 to date. Bush in his whole term got 35 of 52. Also the issue with the DC court is it's expansion, not filling vacancies. "Vacancies" were created to pack it. I believe that the vacancies were created before Obama and the cloture rule meant Bush didn't bother with appointments. The deal brokered in 2005 let non-packing appointees to pass if they were well-qualified. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/harry-reid-filibuster-government-shutdown-97263.html
Senator Cruz's Filibuster lasted over 21 hours, making it the fourth longest in history. Shouldn't it be included in the longest list? 64.75.76.2 ( talk) 18:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In recent years it seems to be more common for politicians to use the senate floor to make long speeches which invariably get labelled filibusters when they are in fact just long speeches. A filibuster is only a filibuster when it delays legislation. [1]
Please be wary of "filibusters" from politicians that are running for president. Sanders, Paul, and Cruz have all given impressively long speeches, but unless they delay legislation they haven't filibustered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.76.102 ( talk) 16:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Sen. Rand Paul’s latest filibuster is a filibuster
[5]
Guck14 (
talk)
18:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
[6](UTC)
References
There needs to be an explanation of just how a successful filibuster actual blocks a vote, rather than just delaying it (at most a few days evidently). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.200.191.126 ( talk) 11:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment. This is the reason I came to read this article, and I have no idea how it works. I also don't understand why the list of longest filibusters includes only those by individuals. There have been 50+ day filibusters by multiple senators which is a significant piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.118.62.150 ( talk) 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
How does the filibuster shape the character of the Senate? Has the existence of the filibuster been good for the country, or bad? Looking back, what filibusters accomplished something good? Bad?
The filibuster is gradually being curtailed. How will our country be different when it's gone completely? deisenbe ( talk) 15:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
To add to this article: exactly what a "virtual filibuster" is, how it is used, and at least one or two examples of its actual past usage. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 18:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence of the Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster is tagged {{ fv}}, and I think this is because of the assertion reading, "but only on the first day of the session", following the comma there. I'm no expert here but, out of curiosity, I looked for clarification. and on page 266 here (click that page number there), it appears to me that this is likely related to a decision made in 1969 by VP Humphrey which is described there. It says there, though, that the decision was reversed. My guess is that practice related to this has changed since 1969, and that this tagged sentence needs to be either clarified or truncated at the comma. As I say, I'm no expert here; could someone who knows a lot more about this than I please take a look at this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I added language to the article saying, "[...] Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, proposed to filibuster the organizing resolution [...]". A little later, someone (I haven't checked the edit history) added the language "[...] McConnell officially announced that he would hand over control of the 50-50 Senate to Democrats." I was trying to stick to the neutral point of view on a topic of partisan disagreement, and I guess so was the other editor. However, at this point the whole paragraph, taken as a whole, seems to have swung in the opposite direction and taken on a non-neutral pro-McConnell point of view. Accordingly, I'm planning to change these snippets to "[...] Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, threatened to filibuster the organizing resolution [...]" and "[...] McConnell abandoned his threat of a filibuster." Please let me know what you think. Airbornemihir ( talk) 21:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
perhaps this should be included in the article?
Senators from the American West were alarmed by this proposal which would give the Chinese in America the right to vote. Senator William Stewart, a Republican from Nevada, threatened to filibuster the entire proposal if such an amendment was included. Senate procedures at the time allowed no override of filibusters by a 2/3 vote until 1917 so any Senator could effectively stall proceedings for as long as they wanted to speak. Senator George Williams, an Oregon Republican, and ironically one of the Republican leaders in passing the 15th Amendment that prohibited the United States from denying the vote based upon "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" then proposed to add this amendment to the bill, "But this act shall not be construed to authorize the naturalization of people born in the Chinese empire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
This article needs to be rewritten in its entirety. What a hotchpotch of opinions and cherrypicked nonsense.
Don't use Wikipedia articles as a baseball bat in US politics. When in doubt - don't write whatever "perspective" you "feel" is needed. Use sources, use vetted definitions - or/and get out.
Poetically, the filibuster article is a pièce du filibuster.
Arcsoda ( talk) 11:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Ringwiss The rewrite of the lead section, particularly the first paragraph, is not an accessible overview of what a filibuster is. A person who is visiting the article and simply wants to know what a filibuster is cannot easily understand what it is with the current text. The explanation also requires reading the two paragraphs instead of one like they could with the previous revision.
A filibuster is the simply fact that 60 votes are required to pass a bill instead of 50. It should not take until the end of the second paragraph to explain this as well introduce other facts like "Rule XXII" which are unimportant to the understanding of the concept.
Could the first paragraph be switched to the previous version? Lectrician1 ( talk) 15:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The previous version makes this even more clear compared to the language of this version... Lectrician1 ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)A filibuster is the act of continuing to debate or otherwise use procedural techniques in order to block a vote.
Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate allows the Senate to vote to limit debate by invoking cloture on the pending question. In most cases, however, this requires a majority of three-fifths of senators duly chosen and sworn
Shouldn't those go inside the references (at the bottom) themselves instead of in the page itself? : 2 just looks unslightly. Anyone explicitly mind if I just replace every single template:rp with an page number into the reference itself? I seriously don't see how this helps the casual reader, its just visual clutter to me. DarmaniLink ( talk) 07:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)