Can someone please post the definitive answer to this question?

[Duer 157099]

Why were the obstructionists in the Senate not made to *actually* filibuster the unemployment extension bill?

[Lil Missy]

1. Call Congress right fucking now!!!!

:D

[ZombieHorde]

2. I asked my Senator about that, he said the reason is because

there is no one in the room to hear the filibuster.

He said the senators mostly communicate through their laptops and blackberries now.

[hlthe2b]

3. Wouldn't Majority Leader, Harry Reid have to provide the "definitive"

answer? I doubt he's posting at DU, however.

The question has been asked many times, by Thom Hartman and others...I have yet to see a "definitive" answer. Some allude to the need to get other work done or DEMS will pay the price...:shrug:

[Greyhound]

4. Which defeats the whole purpose of the filibuster.

The idea of protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority is valid, and as long as the step was an extreme inconvenience to both the filibusterer and the operation of the government as a whole, it worked well. An issue has to be really important to organize a filibuster and shut the whole process of government down over it.

Now, they have made it just another painless device with which to blackmail the legislature, while not impeding it.

[hlthe2b]

10. Preaching to the choir, I'm afraid.

**sigh**

[Greyhound]

21. Yeah, it's just so frustrating seeing people get all worked up about "taking the filibuster away

from republiks" as if the Democrats will remain in power.

Of course, now that I think about it, the Democrats refused to use it even during the most heinous violations after the coup, so maybe...
:hi:

[Cresent City Kid]

5. The unemployed can't filibuster the landlord come rent time

"I'll pay the rent, but first I'm going to read the New York City phone book. Maybe in the interim congress will come to their senses."

[treestar]

6. This subject is up in the air currently at DU

It may be that there is no longer such a thing as a physical filibuster.

Or that the Democrats don't want to lose it for times they are out of power.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Not enough "dry powder" has been accumulated.

[Clovis Sangrail]

8. here

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/18/should-the-senate-return-to-old-style-filibusters/print/

[HughMoran]

17. That's it.

"
This argument fails to take into consideration some important realities of political development that explain why the Senate no longer operates in this way. The bottom line is that the majority does not want to expend the effort to exhaust the minority, and indeed, in all likelihood would be unable to do so. In today's Senate, the agenda is so crowded and senators' individual schedules are so packed that it would take little effort on the part of the minority to bring the Senate to execute successfully a "classic filibuster" to the detriment of the majority and to the country.

The Senate is constitutionally forbidden from conducting business in the absence of a quorum, which requires a majority of the chamber to be present. Maintaining a quorum, which is essential to fighting a classic filibuster, would be exceedingly difficult to do because of the demands that senators currently face outside of the chamber. Senators of today devote much more time to working behind the scenes on activities necessary to produce legislation, returning to their home states to interact with constituents, and raising campaign funds than did their counterparts in the "good old days."
"

[mikeSchmuckabee]

9. In the 80's or 90's it was made just a matter of paperwork.

Filing the right paperwork threatening a filibuster by the minority is all that it takes to stop all progress on a bill. I think that's how it works.

[notadmblnd]

11. Cause everyone wanted to go home. There's fund raising to do

You know you can't have too much of that corporate money come election time.

[Electric Monk]

12. Timecube

http://www.timecube.com/

[papadog]

13. Because Harry Reid and the democrats have no balls.

When the Repugnants had the senate the would twist arms and do what ever it took to get their agenda across. Harry is a wet noodle who refuses to do what it takes to get what the people want done for the people.
Of course this is all based on the assumption that the Democrats want the same things we want. I think each party just wants its turn at the donation trough.

[SJC55]

18. Yep

Agreed.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. Because the Senate rules do not require it...that is the definitive reason. n/t

[asdjrocky]

15. It's all so obvious now that it's a show.

It's all play acting to make us think that they actually care.

I call it the good copping bad copping of America.

[Recursion]

16. I think the specific rules change was by Byrd in the early 1980s

As I understand it, the idea had to do with national security; the Senate didn't have to stop all business just because a few people were pissed off at a particular measure.

[IOKIYAL]

19. 'One More Time'

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/01/live-filibuster-one-more-time.html

Click, READ, and then check the comment section.

[Laelth]

20. Thanks for that link. The comments are excellent.

The main piece is weak-willed, defeatist nonsense.

:dem:

-Laelth