No one ever built the filibuster rule. It just kind of was created.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We've seen filibusters to block judicial nominations, jobs bills, political transparency, ending Big Oil subsidies - you name it, there's been a filibuster.
I mean, if you go back to 1960 on major pieces of legislation, the filibuster was used about eight percent of the time.
There are two ways of looking at the talking filibuster. My way is as a form of unanimous consent.
My view of the filibuster is either you've got to lower vote edge or make people really filibuster if they feel that seriously about a piece of legislation.
There is no Senate rule governing the proper uses of the filibuster.
It used to be in the Senate that if you were filibustering, you stood up. There was a physical dimension to it, that you - when you became exhausted you would have to leave the floor. That was the idea of the filibuster.
The House of Representatives eliminated the filibuster way back in the 19th century, and somehow it managed to survive.
When you use the word 'filibuster,' most of us in America - and I count myself among them - envision it as the ability to hold the floor on rare occasions to speak at length and make your point emphatically and even delay progress by taking hours.
We've seen filibusters of bills and nominations that ultimately passed with 90 or more votes. Why filibuster something that has that kind of support? Just to slow down the process and keep the Senate from working.
My way of viewing the talking filibuster was as a way of doing unanimous consent with your feet. You object by going down and talking.