The filibuster has gone from affecting 8 percent of big bills in the 1950s to 70 percent in the 2000

[flpoljunkie]

The filibuster has gone from affecting 8 percent of big bills in the 1950s to 70 percent in the 2000s

Over at U.S. News and World Report, Robert Schlesinger attaches some more numbers to the rise of the filibuster:

The fact of the matter is that the frequency of filibusters has increased by a factor of 50 since the days of (then-Democrat) Strom Thurmond jaw-jacking for 24 hours to stop a civil rights bill. So too has the general use of delaying tactics on major pieces of legislation. Consider some data points.

According to research by UCLA political scientist Barbara Sinclair, there was an average of one filibuster per Congress during the 1950s. That number has grown steadily since and spiked in 2007 and 2008 (the 110th Congress), when there were 52 filibusters. More broadly, according to Sinclair, while 8 percent of major legislation in the 1960s was subject to "extended-debate-related problems" like filibusters, 70 percent of major bills were so targeted during the 110th Congress.

Read that again: from 8 percent -- pretty infrequently -- to 70 percent, or rule of the day. (These data come from Sinclair and from her chapter in CQ Press's Congress Reconsidered.)

I can't emphasize this enough: Things are not as they have always been. The filibuster has transformed, and the Senate has followed suit, and it all happened accidentally, not with anyone debating the consequences and implications of adding a supermajority requirement to the American legislative process.

By Ezra Klein | November 25, 2009; 5:19 PM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_filibuster_has_gone_from_a.html

[Skink]

1. welcome to California where nothing gets done.

[Festivito]

2. A RW hit job just before the public option might require filibuster.

Factoid: Strom was a Democrat. They had to find some way to say the word Democrat in order to infer Democrats are a fault here. Republican filibusters: NOT MENTIONED.

The sudden increase starts when Republicans filibuster. NOT MENTIONED. IMAGINE.

Before that, when Dems threatened to filibuster during a Bush time, they were "OBSTRUCTIONISTS." Hmmm. NOT MENTIONED.

When Lieberman threatens to filibuster if there is a public option, NO PROBLEM.

When Sanders threatens to filibuster if there is NO public option, BIG PROBLEM -- a hit piece is written. Oh, and it just happens to mention that Dems filibuster.

[flpoljunkie]

3. It is the Republicans who are filibustering in the 2000s.

[Festivito]

5. AFTER Ds took Congress, Rs filibustered more times than all of US history.

Rs achieved that milestone in short time while Ds were in majority.

[treestar]

4. The repukes have abused it

In their extremism, they used it routinely rather than the rare situations where it was used traditionally.

It's a tough question, because it might have protected us from some very undesirable SCOTUS nominees.

[DrToast]

7. And the Dems have let them.

[Better Believe It]

6. What filibusters? The phantom non-filibuster filibusters?

That can be changed in a heartbeat.

Whoever controls the Senate makes the rules.

And Senate Democrats can require Republican Senators who "filibuster" to take the senate floor in a genuine "filibuster" rather then the "call it in" kind.

Can anyone here present some specific and detailed information on real filibusters that have taken place this year?

If a genuine filibuster took place one would be able to answer the following questions in detail:

When did the filibuster take place and on what bill?

How long did it last?

What Senator(s) actually filibustered against that bill?

How many votes were taken to end the filibuster?

And what was the outcome of that filibuster .... was the bill withdrawn or passed?

[Firstzar]

8. Symptom of a System on the Verge of Collapse

A European-style parliamentary democracy would work much more efficiently.