So many diaries recently touch on filibusters in the Senate....but I read conflicting information and want to really understand the issue.
When diaries touch on votes in the Senate where the vast majority vote to pass a bill, but a minority of as little as 41 Senators block it...they always have a discussion of the filibuster.
Some ask why it is called a filibuster when we don't see people reading or speaking constantly blocking other activity...cots being brought in...etc. The explanation presented is because the filibuster rules have been changed. I see they were in 1975, requiring 3/5 instead of 2/3 of votes to break a filibuster. But also, according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
In the modern filibuster, the Senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
Is this last line true? If so..why has Reid not exercised this? Why hasn't he made the Republicans have to work and support their opposition to bills?
If it is not true, please explain that further.
Were there other major changes since the one in 1975? Because Senator Al D'Amato had a filibuster in 1986 that lasted over 23 hours and one in 1992 that lasted over 15 hours. Were these not true filibusters?
So lay the truth on me...and also if you think the filibuster should stay or go.
If the Senators actually had to filibuster in support of their ideals...and was used as rarely as it was in the past...I don't have a real problem with it. But if the way it works now is legislation does not get passed unless there are 60 vote...then it really has to go. But if the reason 60 votes are needed is because Reid just lets it end without a fight when not getting 60 votes...then I am just pissed.