Forum: Author Hangout

Filibuster - Anywhere but U.S. Senate?

PotomacBob 🚫

Is there any legislative body, other than the U.S. senate - in the U.S. or elsewhere - where legislators can use a filibuster to kill a bill? It's, in theory, a means of talking proposed legislation to death, and it takes a 60 percent supermajority to stop a filibuster.
I don't know whether a filibuster can be used on a yes-or-no vote on passage of the measure. the ones I've read about prevent the Senate from even considering it.
I've not heard of a filibuster being used in other legislative bodies - but that I haven't heard about it does not mean it isn't done.
Anybody know of other places it is used?

Replies: Dominions Son JoeBobMack Switch Blayde irvmull richardshagrin

Dominions Son 🚫

@PotomacBob

in theory, a means of talking proposed legislation to death

Actually, the modern filibuster doesn't work that way. They changed the rules in the 1970s I think.

and it takes a 60 percent supermajority to stop a filibuster.

Another point where the modern filibuster differs from the way it was originally done.

The modern filibuster:
Does not require actually holding the floor of the Senate and talking.

Only blocks the one bill.

Can only be ended by a cloture vote.

The original filibuster:
Required the Senators trying to block a bill to hold the floor of the Senate and talk continuously.

Blocked all Senate business.

While it could be ended prematurely by a cloture vote, that wasn't the only way to end it. If the Senators behind it ran out of steam and stopped talking they effectively yielded control of the Senate Floor and the filibuster was over.

The longest ever real filibuster lasted just over 24 hours when US Sen. Strom Thurmond tried to block the 1957 civil rights act.

Replies: Remus2

Remus2 🚫

@Dominions Son

The longest ever real filibuster lasted just over 24 hours when US Sen. Strom Thurmond tried to block the 1957 civil rights act.

Thurmond was a Democrat at the time. How times change.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Remus2

Thurmond was a Democrat at the time. How times change.

Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

When MLK Jr. was jailed, he called his friend Richard Nixon to help him (a Republican). Nixon couldn't get anywhere so he called the man he was running against — JFK. When JFK helped MLK Jr., Robert Kennedy fought him over it saying that will cost them the South (Southern Democrats).

Replies: Remus2

Remus2 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Lincoln started his political life in the American party system which was dominated by the Whigs. The Republican party was created in 1854 in response to the Kansas–Nebraska Act which allowed slavery to continue in the territories and new states.
I find that ironic every time I see a Democrat yell that the Republicans are inherently racist.

Replies: tenyari

tenyari 🚫
Updated:

@Remus2

It's not that one party or the other has any inherent whatever.

BUT the people with certain inherent traits HAVE switched party loyalties as those traits moved.

The modern Democratic stance came about unwillingly.

In 1908, an argument over, if I recall right - gold vs silver vs other standards. The Democratic candidate who was also the lawyer that later won the trial case against teaching evolution... he figured he could win by angling his position as good for labor.

He lost, but the Dems took on a pro-labor platform.

Unions at the time were White Only. Companies would hire Blacks and Hispanics as 'scabs' to work when there was a strike.

The Dems spent a good few decades trying to fight 'scabs' until somebody pointed out that 'why don't we let these folks join the union?' and the Southern Dems lots the argument against it.

- So that was how the Dems became first a labor party, and later a civil rights party. It was always a marriage of convenience.

Over time with passing generations the people who were naturally attracted to one of both of those stances became Dems, and the people who were not left and joined the Republicans.

Thurmond was part of that final generation of 'Dixie-crats'.

Except the Dems still have 2 Dixie-crats in the Senate right now so... the transition isn't 100%.

Plus Since Clinton, the Dems have been moving away from labor.

So Working Class whites were left "in the wind", and the Republicans saw the opportunity to tell them the fault for their troubles was minorities, gays, and immigrants - and not automation, lack of infrastructure, and poorly funded schools.

The Dems were right to fully embrace civil rights and work hard to chase out all their Dixie-crats. But they were seriously stupid to abandon labor.

One reason Democratic coalitions always have so much trouble is that their historic two platforms were united by need and never really brought together well. Democrats build coalitions of people that each have an issue - but are not willing to be second or third in line to having their issue addressed.

Republicans build around charismatic figures who tell people what to be against. Dissent takes a second seat more easily.

JoeBobMack 🚫

@PotomacBob

A super-majority retirement would function the same. A number of days have those for amending their constitutions or raising taxes. Here's a report for raising taxes.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/supermajority-vote-requirements-to-pass-the-budget635542510.aspx

Replies: Freyrs_stories PotomacBob

Freyrs_stories 🚫

@JoeBobMack

They're common anywhere a parliament or what ever word you choose to use is based at least in part on the Westminster system. At least I think the U.S kinda follows that, someone else will surely correct me.

obviously the mechanics are as varied as the day is long. but as far as I've see. talk till the allotted time for debate is up and you succeed at least temporarily

PotomacBob 🚫

@JoeBobMack

Thank you JoeBobMack for providing the information I needed.

Replies: Virt

Virt 🚫

@PotomacBob

Keep in mind that the Westminster variants are historically quite rare. Even among the post-Commonwealth nations. That said, there's no mechanism analogous to the US filibuster as such, there are a few mechanisms (for example in the UK) which can be abused to a point where the effect is similar to that of a filibuster applied.

There's an American historian, H.C. Richardson, who in recent years has written a few explorations of the subject.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@PotomacBob

it takes a 60 percent supermajority

The reason for the 60% is stop one party from making all the laws. It takes a bipartisan agreement (unless one party has 60% of the Senate which is highly unlikely).

The problem is, we are a divided country and senators don't vote for what's right, but what their party wants. And the other side votes against what the other party wants. No bipartisanship.

The reconciliation that they wanted to use for Build Back Better was a way to get around that rule. Reconciliation, which is supposed to only be used for budget matters, only takes a simple majority. There was so much in BBB that didn't fit into "budget" and a lot that was a stretch.

irvmull 🚫

@PotomacBob

You want a bipartisan vote?
Try yet another bill to raise their own pay or benefits.

richardshagrin 🚫

@PotomacBob

I had a brother-in-law who was nicknamed Buster. Actually he was a Marlow White, his dad was a military tailor of the same name. He enjoyed his meals and they tended to fill a Buster.

He was not fond of the video store named Block Buster.

Forum: Author Hangout

Filibuster - Anywhere but U.S. Senate?

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...