I am always grateful to my friend Chris Stigall for appearing on his terrific podcast to talk about the Senate's "filibuster" rule - requiring a supermajority of 60 votes to "end debate" on issues - and why you should be paying careful attention to it.
Here's the thing - Senate Democrats are globbing onto comments made several days ago by US Sen. Joe Manchin - who has promised to protect the Senate’s current “filibuster” rule - that he wants to make filibusters “more painful.” Like a return to the “talking filibuster.”
My last blog post goes into some detail about the history and significance of the Senate’s rule 22, at least part of it, that requires a three-fifths vote - 60 votes - to “invoke cloture” and bring to an end debate on a legislative issue (the filibuster has been eliminated for executive and US Supreme Court nominations).
Here’s the thing I raised on Chris’s show this morning but didn’t dwell enough on in my recent post - do not be lulled by Senate Democrats pushing not for an “end” to the filibuster, but instead requiring a “talking filibuster.” That’s an attempt to end the 60-vote threshold to invoke cloture, and they’ll use the nuclear option to do so.
Talking filibusters do not last long (the record is 24 hours and 18 minutes) and are not hard to thwart. Just wait until the Senator gives out and when he or she is done, recognize someone from the majority party to move things along (a member of the majority party serves as the presiding officer). A Senator who is filibustering cannot yield to another Senator except for a question (of course, the questions can take a very long time to ask).
And ending the filibuster may sound great when your party is in charge, but everything you did will be reversed with the other side takes charge. That’s no way to run a government. Take a listen.