The Senate hasn't always had a filibuster. So maybe Reid and Inslee are right -- it's time to end it

[pnwmom]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

A filibuster in the United States Senate is a tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when one or more senators attempt to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[1] (usually 60 out of 100) bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

The ability to block a measure through extended debate was an inadvertent side effect of an 1806 rule change, and was infrequently used during much of the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1970, the Senate adopted a "two-track" procedure to prevent filibusters from stopping all other Senate business. The minority then felt politically safer in threatening filibusters more regularly, which became normalized over time to the point that 60 votes are now required to end debate on nearly every controversial legislative item. As a result, "the contemporary Senate has morphed into a 60-vote institution — the new normal for approving measures or matters — a fundamental transformation from earlier years."[2]

Efforts to limit the practice include laws that explicitly limit the time for Senate debate, notably the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that created the budget reconciliation process. Changes in 2013 and 2017 now require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on nominations, although most legislation still requires 60 votes.

One or more senators may still occasionally hold the floor for an extended period, sometimes without the advance knowledge of the Senate leadership. However, these "filibusters" usually result only in brief delays and do not determine outcomes, since the Senate's ability to act ultimately depends upon whether there are sufficient votes to invoke cloture and proceed to a final vote on passage. However, such brief delays can be politically relevant when exercised shortly before a major deadline (such as avoiding a government shutdown) or before a Senate recess.

[FBaggins]

1. Not always... just 200+ years

I disagree with Reid (as I did the first time he mucked this up).

Do we really have to remind people that it isn't impossible to get a republican House/Senate/President at the same time (like we had... oh... I don't know... just a few months ago?).

[UniteFightBack]

6. This for fucks sake. nt

[PoliticAverse]

2. As noted the big change was when the "talking filibuster" was ended. Before that

filibusters were rare and most failed (the opposition just had to wait them out).

[mopinko]

3. either dump it or go back to talking

the senate is anti-democratic enough w/o needing a super-majority for every damn thing.

[PSPS]

4. Better yet, abolish the senate entirely. It's undemocratic.

[pnwmom]

5. The Senate is in the Constitution. The filibuster is not. n/t

[maxsolomon]

7. It's in need of an update, at a minimum.

I have no issue with a separate "House of Lords" legislative body representing States at the Federal level, but the population to senator ratio of CA, TX, or NY compared to WY and VT is absurd, and, to use President Asshole's favorite word, unfair.

Not to mention DC and US territories having no representation in Congress at all.

A return to talking filibusters would be a start.