Heard on Rachel yesterday that during the six years of LBJ

[Bandit]

There was only ONE filibuster...compare that to this year when there was 84 and counting

[frazzled]

1. Detail: during LBJ's tenure as Senate Majority Leader, not president

During his presidency he had huge Democratic majorities in the senate, 66 and 68 if I recall.

[MNBrewer]

2. that's because nobody actually filibusters...

they just threaten to, and that stops everything. make those fkkers stand up there and orate for hours on end....

[TheWraith]

4. Filibusters don't actually work that way. They haven't in a long time.

The "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" type of filibuster hasn't existed in over 35 years.

[MNBrewer]

5. thanks for agreeing with me

Nobody filibusters anymore. They just threaten to, and that stops everything.

[TheWraith]

8. I'm trying to explain that you are mistaken.

The rules were changed long ago. Talking now has nothing to do with a filibuster--you are not required to talk to sustain one, only to have 41 votes.

[MNBrewer]

9. Exactly, nobody filibusters anymore

[TheWraith]

10. And senators aren't selected by state legislatures anymore.

Neither of which has anything to do with the US Senate as it currently operates.

[MNBrewer]

11. Wow, you are so right

and so frikkin what?

[TheWraith]

12. So your "point" is moot and meaningless.

Saying that "they don't really filibuster anymore" is like saying none of them ride a horse-pulled buggy to the Senate floor. Your original implication is that somehow we're just folding in front of a threat instead of an actual filibuster, when that's completely untrue. Refusing to pass cloture is, in itself, a filibuster. Nothing else is needed, and there is NO means to force someone to be there continuously talking.

[TheWraith]

3. The filibuster rules were different back then, as was the climate.

There were more Democrats in the Senate--68 after the 1964 election--and it required 67 votes to sustain a filibuster. Not to mention the Republicans were less monolithic.

[Bandit]

7. Yes you are right but there was some very major legislation that LBJ put forth

LBJ was extremely Liberal and everything he proposed was as well..It just amazes me they didn't try and block Medicare or any of his "Great Society" proposals.

[hedgehog]

6. Not to mention that LBJ was probably certifiable and he scared a lot of people!

[progressoid]

13. Just THREATS of a filibuster

Not actual filibusters. They don't have the backbone to really filibuster and we don't have the backbone to call them on it.

[TheWraith]

16. That is absolutely false.

The belief that somehow these aren't "real" filibusters is a myth. Talking hasn't had anything to do with a filibuster for decades--all you need is 41 votes.

[DirkGently]

14. The Senate is BROKEN. If there's one thing DU can agree on, it should be that.

[TexasObserver]

15. LBJ. There's a guy who knew how to drive the government.

[happyslug]

17. Filibuster are still possible under the Rules of the Senate

General rules of the US Senate:
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RulesOfSenateHome

The rule used in "Mr Smith goes to Washington" still exists (Senate Rule 19):
1. (a) When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until b]he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer , and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.

The above is rarely used, but still can be used.

Rule XIX:
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXIX

What most people call a Filibuster is Senate Rule XXII, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.{/i}

Notice the wording, the Senate can go on to other matters, but does not have to if the leadership wants to stay on that subject. Since the rules were changed in the early 1970s (from 2/3rd of the Senate to 3/5 of the Senate, i.e. from 67 Senators to 60 Senators), This was the same rule as in 1964, but in 1964 the Senate decided to continue the actual debate NOT go on to other matters.

In simple terms, the Senate can still "debate" the bill and if the leadership wants to continue that debate it can do so. It ties up the Senate for nothing else gets done, but that is what the LBJ and the Senate Leadership decided to do in 1964. The Senate leadership has refused to do so since 1964, it has always gone on to other business or continued the debate to another date and time (Which never arrives).

Thus the Senate can do a 1964 type Filibuster, the key is for the Senate Leadership (and this needs support from Obama) to decide to continue the debate on and on and on till the GOP finally gives up.

Rule XXII:
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXXII

[yurbud]

18. GOP has changed. When I was a teen, Oregon had two GOP senators who would be lefties today

Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood.

The Republicans have unified their party into a coherent brand and Democrats are still a loose coalition of progressives, moderate Democrats, and corporate whores.

While I don't like what the GOP has become, at least people know what they are going to get when they vote for them.