CAPITOL HILL – When it comes to the filibuster, Sen. senate D-W.Va., pines for the days of Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., Jimmy Stewart and “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Even the likes of Sens. rand-paul” target=”_blank”>Rand Paul,<
People sometimes perceive the term “filibuster” as pejorative. Those upset by a senator delaying Senate business may claim that they are “filibustering” the legislation. On the other hand, a senator who believes it’s good politics to serve as a roadblock on a particular bill may be happy to embrace the “filibuster” tag. However, if a senator suspects their opponents are unfairly tarring them for “filibustering,” they have a convenient defense. A senator may simply state that they aren’t engaged in a filibuster. They are merely exercising their senatorial privileges.
This brings us to an intriguing question about the quintessence of the filibuster. If it’s supposed to be an exercise in logorrhea, aren’t all long speeches filibusters? And, how effective is a speaking filibuster – if it’s nothing more than a delaying tactic? After all, the record is only a little more than 24 hours. All speeches must come to an end.
Sen. Ted Cruz weighs in on Roe v Wade
Sen. Cruz joins ‘The Ingraham Angle’ to discuss the Democratic Party’s support and radical thinking over abortion.
In September 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, commanded the floor for 21 hours and 14 minutes in an effort to defund ObamaCare. But before Cruz started to speak, the Senate was on autopilot. Senators voted, 100-0, to start debate on the government funding bill the next day. The Senate had locked in a debate time of 1 p.m.
SCHUMER, DEMS ACCEPT FILIBUSTER FLOOR FAILURE TO FIGHT ‘THE GOOD FIGHT’ BEFORE MIDTERMS
Cruz took the floor and spoke for most of the time in between. Cruz may have delivered a marathon speech – including a riff on “Green Eggs and Ham.” But the Texas Republican truly didn’t block anything. The Senate was already committed to something the next day. Cruz was just filling the void.
A really long speech? Yes. But technically, not a filibuster.
This raises another issue. Under current Senate constructs, it’s nearly impossible to enforce senators to talk if they want to filibuster. There are certainly ways to end “phoned-in” filibusters. That’s a cloture vote to end debate. Exhaustion will address protracted speeches which are filibusters. But there’s not a method to mandate a senator head to the floor and talk if they insist on delaying legislation.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
This is the question which vexes the Senate.
And, what vexes the public is the definition of a filibuster – despite what everyone was taught in school about Strom Thurmond and Jimmy Stewart.
