- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Explain the filibuster to me
Posted on 3/4/25 at 7:34 am
Posted on 3/4/25 at 7:34 am
I’m very involved in politics and thought I understood this process but apparently I do not. I thought it was just a stall tactic by the minority party but I guess it’s more than that. I thought after the filibuster was over, then the vote proceeds and the majority wins. I understand you need a super majority (60 votes) on some legislation to override the filibuster. I guess my question is, which proposed legislation needs a simple majority and which ones require a super majority?
5
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:12 am to lsushelly
"The Senate tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for the use of the filibuster, a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question."
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:32 am to pitchandcatch27
I get that but after the delay, shouldn’t a simple majority be all it takes? Some bills require 60 votes and some do not. What’s the difference?
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:35 am to lsushelly
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:36 am to lsushelly
It's a Senate Rule that requires 60 votes to cut off/limit debate on an item. Otherwise, senators can hold the floor for debate forever and that item never comes to a vote (nor any other items).
No one actually does real filibusters anymore.
That said, as a rule, it can be changed/abandoned at any time. Dems always talk about doing it when the GOP uses it against them, but it becomes sacred when they are in the minority.
No one actually does real filibusters anymore.
That said, as a rule, it can be changed/abandoned at any time. Dems always talk about doing it when the GOP uses it against them, but it becomes sacred when they are in the minority.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:44 am to udtiger
Go watch the Henry Fonda movie Mr. Smith comes to Washington
Originally the filibuster required human beings to actually speak and control the floor for as long as they were able unless 60 votes were used to stop it
Because the Senate is a bunch of lazy rich jackasses they decided it would be Easier to just say the Filibuster then requires 60 Vote
Originally the filibuster required human beings to actually speak and control the floor for as long as they were able unless 60 votes were used to stop it
Because the Senate is a bunch of lazy rich jackasses they decided it would be Easier to just say the Filibuster then requires 60 Vote
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:46 am to lsushelly
The filibuster also exists as an unofficial way to drive consensus.
Having a 60 vote threshold makes it so that marginal things can't pass.
Having a 60 vote threshold makes it so that marginal things can't pass.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:53 am to dafif
quote:James Stewart not Henry Fonda
Go watch the Henry Fonda movie Mr. Smith comes to Washington
Posted on 3/4/25 at 8:55 am to lsushelly
From grok:
A filibuster is a tactic used in the U.S. Senate to delay or block a vote on a bill, nomination, or other legislative action by extending debate indefinitely. It’s rooted in the Senate’s rules, which prioritize open discussion and don’t automatically limit speaking time, unlike the House of Representatives. The goal is often to stall proceedings, force compromise, or kill a proposal outright without a direct vote.
Historically, senators had to physically hold the floor by speaking for hours—think reading phone books or reciting recipes (yes, that’s happened). Today, it’s less theatrical. A senator can simply signal intent to filibuster, and unless 60 of the 100 senators vote to end debate (a process called **cloture**), the issue stalls. This 60-vote threshold comes from Senate Rule XXII, amended in 1975—before that, it took 67 votes. With only 51 votes needed to pass most legislation, the filibuster effectively creates a supermajority hurdle.
It’s not in the Constitution; it emerged from Senate tradition. The first notable filibuster was in 1837, but it became infamous during the 20th century, especially when Southern senators used it to block civil rights laws—like the Civil Rights Act of 1957, delayed by Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour-plus speech. Now, it’s routine, with hundreds of cloture votes filed in recent decades as partisanship has spiked.
Pros: It protects minority opinions, encourages debate, and prevents rash decisions. Cons: It’s blamed for gridlock, letting a few senators (or even one) derail what a majority wants. Exceptions exist—budget bills under “reconciliation” dodge the filibuster with a simple majority, and since 2017, Supreme Court nominations only need 51 votes after the “nuclear option” was triggered.
Picture it like this: a legislative marathon where one runner can tie everyone else’s shoelaces together—unless 60 people agree to cut the laces. Want an example of a recent filibuster or how it’s shaped a specific law?
A filibuster is a tactic used in the U.S. Senate to delay or block a vote on a bill, nomination, or other legislative action by extending debate indefinitely. It’s rooted in the Senate’s rules, which prioritize open discussion and don’t automatically limit speaking time, unlike the House of Representatives. The goal is often to stall proceedings, force compromise, or kill a proposal outright without a direct vote.
Historically, senators had to physically hold the floor by speaking for hours—think reading phone books or reciting recipes (yes, that’s happened). Today, it’s less theatrical. A senator can simply signal intent to filibuster, and unless 60 of the 100 senators vote to end debate (a process called **cloture**), the issue stalls. This 60-vote threshold comes from Senate Rule XXII, amended in 1975—before that, it took 67 votes. With only 51 votes needed to pass most legislation, the filibuster effectively creates a supermajority hurdle.
It’s not in the Constitution; it emerged from Senate tradition. The first notable filibuster was in 1837, but it became infamous during the 20th century, especially when Southern senators used it to block civil rights laws—like the Civil Rights Act of 1957, delayed by Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour-plus speech. Now, it’s routine, with hundreds of cloture votes filed in recent decades as partisanship has spiked.
Pros: It protects minority opinions, encourages debate, and prevents rash decisions. Cons: It’s blamed for gridlock, letting a few senators (or even one) derail what a majority wants. Exceptions exist—budget bills under “reconciliation” dodge the filibuster with a simple majority, and since 2017, Supreme Court nominations only need 51 votes after the “nuclear option” was triggered.
Picture it like this: a legislative marathon where one runner can tie everyone else’s shoelaces together—unless 60 people agree to cut the laces. Want an example of a recent filibuster or how it’s shaped a specific law?
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:38 am to udtiger
quote:
No one actually does real filibusters anymore.
Wasn't Rand Paul the last person to carry on an actual, traditional filibuster? Seems like I remember him hoarding the podium for almost a full 24 hour day once.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:42 am to udtiger
quote:
No one actually does real filibusters anymore.
Why they don’t force this is proof they’re on the same side
They really need to remove it, the Dems would if they had 51, bet.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 9:47 am to udtiger
quote:
No one actually does real filibusters anymore.
And this is the problem
We should REQUIRE that they actually man up to the filibuster and make someone stand there and talk until he has decided he cannot go forward, then yield to someone else.
We should allow the POTUS to override the 'new' filibuster rules by declaring a legitative EMERGENCY - and only require 1/3 of the senate to agree with him for ending the filibuster - unless there are actual vocal cords being oscillated day and night.
Posted on 3/4/25 at 12:22 pm to rrcar
quote:
James Stewart not Henry Fonda
Absolutely correct
Sorry, I did this while driving
Posted on 3/4/25 at 12:25 pm to dafif
quote:Jimmy Stewart
Go watch the Henry Fonda movie Mr. Smith comes to Washington
Posted on 3/4/25 at 12:56 pm to ChineseBandit58
This.
Make them walk the walk. Keep their asses in the Senate. Make them order out for meals. It should be as unpleasant as possible.
Make them walk the walk. Keep their asses in the Senate. Make them order out for meals. It should be as unpleasant as possible.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News