You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #6: In the old days, one term describing the Filibuster was 'going to the diapers'. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-10 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. In the old days, one term describing the Filibuster was 'going to the diapers'.

This was because there weren't bathroom breaks for the speakers.

***snip***

Types of Filibusters

There are two types of filibusters. The traditional filibuster, which is not very common anymore. It was the kind which involved diapers, phone books, etc where Senators speak non-stop for hours upon hours. The other type of filibuster is the procedural filibuster (or in the opinion of this researcher, a make-believe, pretend filibuster), which has become more common in modern times. This is not really based on the idea of unlimited debate, but is based on the notion that 41 or more votes in the Senate can block a bill. The minority simply says 'We're filibustering this'. Since the majority doesn't really want to know where citizens with last names A through G in the Washington, DC area live, they reply 'Oh, alright...'. If they wanted to, the majority always has the option of saying 'Prove it!' and making them use a traditional filibuster. The procedural filibuster is a kind of a way of blocking a bulldozer without having to lie down in the mud, as the character Ford Prefect attempted in the book Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

One advantage of the procedural filibuster is that it's much more dignified. The Senate can move on to other business sooner, instead of playing a high stakes parliamentary game of 'chicken'. However, though the victor on important issues is not decided by who has stronger bladders, the minority is better off with the procedural filibuster. It's impossible to break a procedural filibuster without a cloture motion (or by changing the rules, which would be ridiculously hard to do). However, many a traditional filibuster has been broken through waiting the minority out and clearing the Senate schedule (which the Senate Majority Leader can do). They have to give up at some point. They're only human.

Another disadvantage of the procedural filibuster is that it's more likely to be abused. As the filibuster becomes easier to do, there are more of them, and the minority stops using the procedure to kill especially offensive, controversial or radical legislation and just filibusters anything it doesn't like. However, the procedural filibuster does facilitate compromise, as it's easier to threaten to filibuster if you're prepared to filibuster, thus scaring the bejeezus out of the majority so they tone down their legislation to make it more moderate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A4814110
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC