Question about the filibuster ...

[Jeebo]

It is my understanding that the reason they started tabling issues that were being filibustered was to get them out of the way so they could move on to other issues. In other words, instead of changing the filibuster rules with a vote in the Senate, didn't they just decide to start setting the issues being filibustered aside while they moved on to other things? In that case, isn't a Senate vote to change the filibuster rules unnecessary? Couldn't the Senate majority leader just decide, when a member of the minority party declares an intent to filibuster the current issue, say, "OK, you want to filibuster? Just go ahead and do it. We're not going to table this issue. You just go ahead and talk and talk and talk until you have to yield the floor because you can't go on any more." Can't the Senate majority leader do that?

-- Ron

[unblock]

1. The majority leader can't force anyone to talk

A filibustering senator can just yield their time. The filibuster is based on needing 60 votes to end debate. The 41 filibustering senators don't need to be talking to prevent 60 votes to end debate.

The majority leader could refuse to bring up other bills, but this likely would only be holding back the rest of the majority's agenda.