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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There are two ways of looking at the talking filibuster. My way is as a form of unanimous consent.
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.
You know, the purpose of reconciliation is to avoid the filibuster. The filibuster is an effort to talk something to death.
They say that women talk too much. If you have worked in Congress you know that the filibuster was invented by men.
They say women talk too much. If you have worked in Congress you know that the filibuster was invented by men.
I mean, if you go back to 1960 on major pieces of legislation, the filibuster was used about eight percent of the time.
We've seen filibusters to block judicial nominations, jobs bills, political transparency, ending Big Oil subsidies - you name it, there's been a filibuster.
No one ever built the filibuster rule. It just kind of was created.
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.
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.