57

It is not possible for Democrats to filibuster the nomination under the current Senate rules, due to Mitch McConnell's use of the 'nuclear option' in 2017 which allowed a nomination debate to be ended by a simple majority vote. In 2013, the Senate voted 52-48 to change the number of votes needed for a successful cloture vote (a vote to end a filibuster) on ...


43

In the Senate, there is the so-called "Nuclear Option" that permits the rules of the Senate to be changed with a simple majority. These rules include the 60-vote rule to close debate, which functionally ends a filibuster. In recent memory the Nuclear Option was employed to end filibusters of judicial appointments of the Democrat controlled Senate ...


33

It’s for “procedural reasons to preserve his right to bring the bill up again”. This article from the Washington Post explains why former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid always seemingly vote against his own party. It's that somebody on the winning side of the cloture vote — in this case, the side voting against cloture — has to file a "motion to ...


27

Assuming that 60 out of 100 senators will never agree on the same thing... That's a huge assumption, which is to say that it is unrealistic. There are lots of things that will not attract the agreement of 60 or more senators, but there are other things that will, such as bills that enable government to function. And there will be things that don't have ...


22

It is true that at one point you did have to talk continuously to block a vote, but it hasn't been true for ages. Skip a few paragraphs if you don't care about the history: Originally, the Senate had a way for the majority to vote to end debate on a matter, by voting that it's time to vote (yes, really) on the matter at hand. In 1806 the President of the ...


22

Is there anything stopping an impeachment trial from being filibustered? Yes, there is a specific rule limiting debate time; and, unlike bills, amendments and resolutions, no procedure for amendments or amendments to amendments, and thus no need for a cloture vote to end the debate. It is the cloture vote requiring three-fifths of the Senators to agree that ...


18

Quoth Wikipedia on obstructionism: Another form of parliamentary obstruction practiced in the United States and other countries is called "slow walking". It specifically refers to the extremely slow speed with which legislators walk to the podium to cast their ballots. For example, in Japan this tactic is known as a "cow walk", and in Hawaii it's known as ...


17

The Senate Judiciary Committee is in charge of holding hearings prior to the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. Since Republicans control the Senate, the 20-member committee would consist of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. This means that the Republicans hold a majority in this committee, thus they would have enough votes to grant or withhold consent ...


17

There are a few reasons: @mmyers hit the nail on the head, in his comment above. Senators in the USA are long-living critters (*cough*Byrd*cough*) and they anticipate that throughout their careers, they may end up in the minority and want to have the filibuster. Some are simply conservative (not in the political orientation sense) and don't like to change ...


17

One thing they will be able to do is repeal regulations that have been finalized by the Trump administration in the last few months (many of which were rushed to completion during the lame-duck period). The Biden administration could put out new regulations to repeal the Trump administration's regulations, but they would have to go through the arduous ...


15

Control of the Senate controls the agenda. Examples: Nominations for positions and judges. In controlling the Senate agenda, The Republican majority leader took no action on a Supreme Court nominee by a Democratic president for 11 months. Never got a vote. The same majority leader managed to get a Republican president's nominee through in about 3 weeks. ...


14

Even without eliminating the filibuster, quite a lot of legislation can be passed through Reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority (50+VP) to pass. While this is, in theory, only intended for budget items, it has historically been used at other times to pass things that wouldn't normally be considered part of the regular budget, such as the ...


12

The Senate must close the debate in order to proceed. In the original rules, this required a motion called the previous question. In 1805, Aaron Burr argued that this was unnecessary and the rules were changed such that it required unanimous consent that debate was over and they were ready to vote. Until 1837, they never denied consent. From 1837 to ...


10

There are several reasons for this. Nuclear Option Basically, there is nothing stopping the Republican party from removing the 60 vote cloture and then passing everything with the 52 person majority they have. That's not a perfect solution - it would only take 2 dissenters for them to lose a vote but for issues the GOP is united on, it would work fine. ...


10

You didn't clarify as to whether you meant "break" in the sense of "This rule expressly prohibits this, but we did it anyway" or in the sense of "This rule is still on the books, but it no longer has any meaning". For clarity's sake, I will refer to the first as violating the rule and the second is invalidating the rule. The senate didn't violate its own ...


9

Not 100% sure, but I think the rules are that Senators are not allowed to give [unlimited] floor speeches during the trial. They can mainly pass written messages. Senators will only have the opportunity for limited speech at the trial. Members should refrain from speaking to neighboring senators while the case is being presented. Pages will continue to be ...


8

Yes, but As a general rule, Senators can walk out during almost anything. They are only forced to stay by their own conscience and how it might look to voters if they left. It's also worth noting that they have changed filibusters from requiring a Senator to give a speech to a simple vote to close debate. While Ted Cruz did give a speech for many ...


6

Elizabeth Warren was accused of being violating Senate Rule XIX. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. This was what she said that was in violation and she was warned by the Senate's presiding officer, Steve ...


6

The rule isn't that spending bills can pass with a simple majority. The rule is that up to two bills a year can be passed via budget reconciliation. This is limited to one spending bill and one revenue bill or to one bill regarding both spending and revenue. This tax reform was their one revenue bill this year. They could still do one spending bill. ...


6

If a senator is speaking on the Senate floor, no other senator may begin speaking unless the speaker yields the floor. Sen. Paul meant that no one could stop him from beginning his filibuster because no one was speaking at the time.


6

Actually, the original purpose of a filibuster is to prevent a vote on the bill. At some times, a group would get together and pass the speaker's role to each other, to allow some rest.. Other times an individual will speak for as long as he can before giving up. filibuster U.S. Politics. the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a ...


5

The purpose of the filibuster is not to force everyone to listen to you read the phone book - it's to delay the matter before the Senate. So it would still be "effective" if everyone left, because if they aren't there, they obviously aren't voting on whatever it is you didn't want them to vote on. According to Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution: a ...


5

What made the nuclear option this time around so tenable, as [o]pposed to say 2005? It appears to have been a combination of frustration and desperation. A PolitiFact article, November 22, 2013, that discusses Sen. Reid's "flip-flop" on the "nuclear option". [While only excepts are provided, reading the full article is suggested.] We’ll ...


5

Perhaps someday it will be, but this is called the "nuclear option" for good reason. Each party has used the filibuster to prevent legislation, or at least force amendments to legislation that they don't like. If Democrats had got rid of the filibuster under Obama, they would not have been able to block Trump's Wall and other projects. If ...


4

The cloture only happened for the substitute Civil Rights bill; from Wikipedia: After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the ...


4

If the Republicans did not have a majority in the Senate, then they couldn't even bring legislation up in that body. They could only amend legislation that the Democratic majority would allow. They went through that from 2007 through 2014 and didn't like it. At least now they can vote on legislation and make Democrats actively vote against legislation. ...


4

In October of 2011, Harry Reid trigger the Nuclear Option. In short, he was able to push through the confirmation of a number of federal judges with a simple majority without threat of filibuster. No vote for cloture was required. While the scope of the Nuclear Option was relatively limited (only federal judge appointments I believe), there is nothing ...


4

Keith Richards, born in 1943 is 73 years old and has been regarded as "modern" because of the music group The Rolling Stones which was formed in 1962. This was a sarcastic reference to "modern" jurisprudence (1938). Wikipedia says that the filibuster in the United States Senate is a Senate rule that allows a senator to talk as long as he does not give up ...


3

The problem with changing the cloture rules via a rule is that the rule can be reversed again. That was the real evil of the "nuclear option." Now, any Senate rule can be changed by a simple majority vote (actually, it always could but no one broke the rules that way). So they change cloture back to sixty votes. Someone filibusters. They change cloture ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible