Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Trump's election bill tops 50 Senate votes, but Democrats could still block it [View all]Wiz Imp
(9,534 posts)44. SO? Let them do it. It will fail and make them look like idiots.
Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page says it would be a stupid thing to do.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-hot-air-of-the-talking-filibuster-b3643289?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqd8lCdtTDZV9_drwaHxIhVHuA6y_AJjjcOMRNk9lewLHxnn6dtduhPXIPv2NeM%3D&gaa_ts=69960244&gaa_sig=6wG31k_Na8eiuq4_zp59VzxAM3I1xDj4AZRmt0l4Q_RpI9KBusQD8cusML0RhzJbDc3NXG8oJVBeB0la5kfZ0A%3D%3D
The Hot Air of the Talking Filibuster
As Washington grows ever more gridlocked, members grow ever more interested in testing the filibuster. With most Republican senators adamant that they wont abolish the procedure outright (which is for the good), some in the activist base are instead demanding Senate leaders change it, by reviving the talking filibuster.
Specifically, Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (with support from conservative senators, like Utahs Mike Lee) want Majority Leader John Thune to ditch cloture, the longstanding process that ends debateand a bills progress, if there is not 60 votes. Democrats would instead be forced to actively talk to stall a vote on the SAVE Act, a House bill requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote and photo ID at the polls. Mr. Lee summed it up: Return to Senate tradition. Require filibustering senators to (gasp) actually speak. Using existing Senate rules. Pass the SAVE America Act. His X post contained (surprise, surprise) nostalgic video of Jimmy Stewart waging his one-man filibuster battle against corrupt Washington.
Talking by turns: Senate Democrats are pretty much united against the SAVE Act. So it wont be one Jimmy Stewart holding the floor: itll be 47. Under talking-filibuster rules, Democrats get two speeches apieceeach of unlimited lengthsimply to oppose moving on to the bill. In a total opposition scenario, thats 94 speeches. If each Democrat spoke for, say, eight hours at a timeeach twicethats about 750 hours (31 days) of talking. Under traditional talking-filibuster rules, there is no way to end this torture.
Then again . . . and again: Democrats can easily take turns eating, sleeping and flying home during this marathon. Only one of them needs to be on the floor giving a speech. The GOP, by contrast, will need to maintain almost all its members on the floor at all times. At any moment, Schumer might demand a quorum callwhich demand 51 senators. Schumer could also move to adjourn, which would restart the legislative dayproviding Democrats a whole new round of 94 speeches. Indeed, any new question or point sparks another round of speeches. What is the lefts top priority in 2026? Blocking entirely the GOP agenda. A talking filibuster provides Democrats a pain-free, headline-friendly way of taking the Senate (and by extension the entire GOP Congress) offline for a very long period.
As Washington grows ever more gridlocked, members grow ever more interested in testing the filibuster. With most Republican senators adamant that they wont abolish the procedure outright (which is for the good), some in the activist base are instead demanding Senate leaders change it, by reviving the talking filibuster.
Specifically, Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (with support from conservative senators, like Utahs Mike Lee) want Majority Leader John Thune to ditch cloture, the longstanding process that ends debateand a bills progress, if there is not 60 votes. Democrats would instead be forced to actively talk to stall a vote on the SAVE Act, a House bill requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote and photo ID at the polls. Mr. Lee summed it up: Return to Senate tradition. Require filibustering senators to (gasp) actually speak. Using existing Senate rules. Pass the SAVE America Act. His X post contained (surprise, surprise) nostalgic video of Jimmy Stewart waging his one-man filibuster battle against corrupt Washington.
Talking by turns: Senate Democrats are pretty much united against the SAVE Act. So it wont be one Jimmy Stewart holding the floor: itll be 47. Under talking-filibuster rules, Democrats get two speeches apieceeach of unlimited lengthsimply to oppose moving on to the bill. In a total opposition scenario, thats 94 speeches. If each Democrat spoke for, say, eight hours at a timeeach twicethats about 750 hours (31 days) of talking. Under traditional talking-filibuster rules, there is no way to end this torture.
Then again . . . and again: Democrats can easily take turns eating, sleeping and flying home during this marathon. Only one of them needs to be on the floor giving a speech. The GOP, by contrast, will need to maintain almost all its members on the floor at all times. At any moment, Schumer might demand a quorum callwhich demand 51 senators. Schumer could also move to adjourn, which would restart the legislative dayproviding Democrats a whole new round of 94 speeches. Indeed, any new question or point sparks another round of speeches. What is the lefts top priority in 2026? Blocking entirely the GOP agenda. A talking filibuster provides Democrats a pain-free, headline-friendly way of taking the Senate (and by extension the entire GOP Congress) offline for a very long period.
You also keep ignoring the fact that Republicans have the 50 votes necessary to pass the legislation by simple majority making Democratic votes completely meaningless unless there are 8 of them to brek the filibuster.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Trump's election bill tops 50 Senate votes, but Democrats could still block it [View all]
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
Tuesday
OP
Jesus Christ, when so many Democrats are against this, Fetterman should NOT even
bluestarone
Wednesday
#34
Filibusters can be initiated by a simple email to the clerk stating the intention to filibuster
Fiendish Thingy
Tuesday
#2
Tell me, what legislation is going to be passed with the filibuster intact?
Fiendish Thingy
Tuesday
#7
Here is a tracker/scorer for how progressive/conservative our members of Congress are
BumRushDaShow
Wednesday
#16
I believe for tie-breaking it matters how Fetterman votes, not what party he's a member of?
Ilikepurple
Wednesday
#11
If he was ousted from the Democratic caucus and stripped of committee positions
onenote
Wednesday
#50
If the SAVE Act passed the Senate, it would mean at least 8 Democrats voted for it.
Wiz Imp
Wednesday
#21
If they change the rules eliminating the filibuster, then ZERO Democratic votes are needed to
Wiz Imp
Wednesday
#25
The title of the Post and the article it refers to is "Trump's election bill tops 50 Senate votes"
Wiz Imp
Wednesday
#28
If it is 51/49, Removing Fetterman by any means does not make Vance a tie breaker
karynnj
Wednesday
#33
"Shapiro would call for a special election. So, he would remain at 50/49 for months. "
BumRushDaShow
Wednesday
#36
No problem - I remember that whole period when Heinz had the plane/helicopter accident
BumRushDaShow
Wednesday
#39
Not talking about removing him from the Senate--talking about removing him from the Democratic caucus
onenote
Wednesday
#51
I hope Democratic think tanks are working on ways to help people get legitimate IDs if needed.
karynnj
Wednesday
#35
People who move? College students missing their birth certificate? Hispanics with multiple last names?
lostnfound
Wednesday
#45
Those are good, constructive ideas. In NC, though, the GOP just grabbed election processes for themselves...
lostnfound
Friday
#58
So none of these apparently uneducated Senators knows that this is an illegal poll tax?
travelingthrulife
Wednesday
#32
"So none of these apparently uneducated Senators knows that this is an illegal poll tax?"
BumRushDaShow
Wednesday
#38