Comments (41) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Basqueian said, 7 months ago

   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.
2. 

   ConserveGov said, 7 months ago

   Short memory those Dems have.
3. 

   Radish said, 7 months ago

   The rules of filibuster need to be tightened up.
4. 

   jonesb said, 7 months ago

   Gridlock is good, then neither party of idiots can do anything.
5. 

   mikefive said, 7 months ago

   The Republicans filibustered legislation and Harry Reid blocked legislation. I wonder if there is going to be a continuance of this close cooperation in the Senate.
6. 

   Doughfoot said, 7 months ago

   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.
7. 

   masterskrain said, 7 months ago

   Best picture of Mitch McConnell I have seen in a while…
8. 

   Simon_Jester said, 7 months ago

   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.
9. 

   Ms. Ima said, 7 months ago

   Barney Frank is gone! Long live the queen!
10. 

    Michael wme said, 7 months ago

    @Doughfoot

    Roberts Rules of Order require 2/3 or 67 senators for cloture, and the Southern senators used the filibuster during the ‘60s to impede civil rights legislation. Even a single senator could often delay a bill, since Senatorial courtesy said one normally didn’t vote cloture, one let the single senator exhaust himself before taking the vote. A group of just 34 senators was enough to prevent a bill from ever coming to a vote, but they had to hold the floor until the other senators agreed to table the bill.

    
    Then, in the ‘70s, they voted, with more than 67 votes, to change the rules. Now, (only?) 60 votes are needed to pass almost any bill in the Senate. The 41 only have to say the word ’filibuster’ and need not talk.

    
    It would take 60 votes to change the rules again, 60 votes the Democrats do NOT have.
11. 

    walruscarver2000 said, 7 months ago

    @Michael wme

    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.
12. 

    pinklenut said, 7 months ago

    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
13. 

    Rockngolfer said, 7 months ago

    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.
14. 

    ARodney said, 7 months ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Ima, you are a disgusting bigot and homophobe. Go back under your rock.
15. 

    ODon said, 7 months ago

    The filibuster has been used by both parties like the UN security council allows a single no vote. Both stymie needed action.
16. Load the rest of the comments (26).