Tom Toles for November 14, 2012

If you wanna stop the Nation’s business, you better be actually talking, and I wanna see who you slimy bastards are. I am also really not cool with that anonymous hold garbage.

Short memory those Dems have.

Gridlock is good, then neither party of idiots can do anything.

The word filibuster is derived from the same Dutch word from which we get “freebooter.” It originally mean “pirate” or “highjacker”. In the mid-19th century it referred to small groups of adventurer who went into a country in the hopes of fomenting rebellion and seizing power themselves. It wasn’t used in congress until the 1890s. It was a rare practice until 1970 or so, because until then it required someone to actually hold the floor and talk and talk and talk, and no other business could be done while it went on. The rules were changed then to allow a virtual filibuster in which a vote could not be taken in the Senate until 60 senators agreed to end the “debate” on the question, which debate did not actually have to be taking place, and which would thus not impede other business for going on simultaneously. Since then the use of the filibuster rule has been growing and growing. It really picked up steam in the 1990s, and skyrocketed starting with the 110th congress in 2007. Now, it has practically become a Senate rule that without 60 votes for “cloture” no bill can be brought to a vote. This is not “the way things have always been done in the Senate.” This is an innovation, not many years old, that has so empowered the minority party in the Senate as to practically render impotent any majority less than 60 in the Senate. Note that the party of the Senator in the cartoon is not identified. Reforming the filibuster would not require any innovation: it would only require that the Senate return to the rules that prevailed from 1790 to 1970. In that respect, I am a true conservative and want to do back to the good old days when the filibuster actually required effort, and had consequences beyond the bill in question.

You don’t. According to the Senate rules you only have to say, "I filibuster’, and that’s that unless there’s a cloture vote.

You put your finger on it. The South used it in the ’60’s to block Civil Rights legislation. In fact, aside from an old Jimmy Stewart movie, the filibuster has never been an honorable tool. But neither side is willing to get rid of it because it means they can thwart the other. The good of our country??? Never heard of it.

If they bring this up on the first day of session of the new congress, it only takes a simple majority to ratify it. Fillabusters aren’t allowed on the first day. I think putting the rules back to pre-1970 would be a big positive step for the country

I remember when one Senator read the dictionary, and another read the phone book.I think it would be good to go back to those days to show how ridiculous they look.

Ima, you are a disgusting bigot and homophobe. Go back under your rock.

The filibuster has been used by both parties like the UN security council allows a single no vote. Both stymie needed action.

The abuse of the filibuster has crippled the Senate. Republicans have abused this obstructive tactic. It was intended to be used rarely. It’s NOT in the constitution. It’s NOT what the Founding Fathers ever wanted. Republican abuse of the filibuster MUST be ended, because you can be sure that when (if) the Republicans ever take back the Senate, the Democrats will abuse it just as much from now on.

Until the filibuster is restricted, the Senate will remain what it is now – a useless country club. Regardless of which party is in control.

We should return to the old rules for filibusters, and then keep a large supply of lock-jaw on hand for just such emergencies……..

Do you actually have a life?

“This must be Harry Reid.”No. it’s Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate minority leader, and a ridiculously obstructionist tortoise. McConnell said in Jan. 2009 that his only goal was to make “Obama a one-term president.” He failed. Currently, Congressional Republicans, Obama and Wall Street are all working behind this clown’s back in order to get a deal on the ‘fiscal cliff’ and bring stability to the budget and the markets.

< img src=“http://yourpicturelink.png” width=“300” >Take out spaces after and before the brackets.

The filibuster is one of those thing that really embarrasses America. It’s time is past. It’s the 21st century. We really need to move on.

Ima, Barney Frank is in the House, not the Senate. The filibuster is ONLY in the Senate. Any other “intelligent” gems you want to share today?

The solution is simple: Everyone that does not like the current rules would join a Super Pac. Then they would target one “Fili” Senator in the nation for Defeat. $Spend triple against him in the next re-election. Do that again in 2 years to another Senator. The other Senators would get the message. They will do ANYTHING to get re-elected. Even do their job.

< img src=“http://yourpicturewebsite.com/picturename.png” width=“300” >Sorry, I garbled the link part. The link in " " is wherever your picture is. It has to be already online somewhere.

this is from the party that started filibustering scotus nominees

Michael WME: The Senate does not, and AFAIK, never has operated under Roberts Rules of Order, although there may be similarities.

It is my understanding that it would take only 51 votes to change the Senate Rules to eliminate or change the filibuster, but that both parties are loathe to do so, because they all know that they may want to use it some day.

I would prefer that it be eliminated altogether, but I would be happy if they would return to the days when a Senator must actually stand there and talk. Remember Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”?

I, too, find the anonymous holds to be especially offensive. IMHO, they are downright unconstitutional. The Constitution gives each house the right to set their own rules, but I don’t believe that right extends to subverting the intent of the Constitution.

Ima: WTF? What does this have to do with anything? Is there a way we can “filibuster” Ima’s comments?