Filibusters: History, Purpose, & Controversy [POLICYbrief]

In the 1939 classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the fictional Senator Jefferson Smith filibusters on the floor of the Senate for 25 hours in order to delay a bill and block a graft scheme. Smith ended his filibuster by collapsing in a faint.

Though actual filibusters tend to be far less dramatic, they are still regularly utilized by senators to extend debate, block legislation, delay a vote, or achieve legislative consensus. But has the filibuster always been used this way? In this video co-sponsored by the Article I Initiative, Senator Mike Lee (Utah) explores the evolution of the filibuster and its use in the Senate.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.

Learn more about Mike Lee:

Learn more about the Article I Initiative:

Related Links & Differing Views:

Congressional Research Service: “Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate”

The New York Times: “The Senate Filibuster, Explained”

The Atlantic: “The Silenced Majority”

Claremont Institute: “Against Senate Resolution 355”

The Federalist Society Podcast: “Changing the Rules: The Senate Filibuster”

[damonguzman]

Omg, this was AMAZING! I'm absolutely ecstatic that you ACTUALLY provided opposing viewpoints in the description! I f***ing love you for that. I'm sick of people pushing an agenda on me because I would just like the facts, opposing interpretations and allow me to draw my own conclusions. This video EXEMPLIFIES everything America wants and NEEDS in today's society and politics.
First video I watched from you, immediate subscription

[JimBimBum]

I actually quite loved that this was advertised. I learned something about the government I normal would've never known so thank you. :)

[Thomas]

3:03 Surely it is unconstitutional. If the consequence of not getting 60 votes to end a filibuster is that the bill doesn’t even make it to a basic majority vote, then _in practice_ it means a bill needs 60 votes to pass, not 51.

[Coinpease]

There's a certain irony in people who claim to want a constitutional system that as closely as possible resembles the original intent of the founders, yet go on to shamelessly defend a parliamentary precedent that the founders clearly never intended to create.

[floofygod]

Thank you so much for providing an unbiased overview.

I just want the information then I'll make up my mind myself.

[davidosterberg]

“There is nothing racist about keeping the filibuster. And here’s the question: If it’s a tool of racism, why did they use it so much when they were in the minority? Why did they use it to stop [Sen.] Tim Scott’s ability to have a discussion about police reform? This is hypocrisy and it’s not going to work.”
---Lindsay Graham 22 April 2021

[cornflakeSmuggler]

Debate would actually make sense IF parties didn't exist. Because then you would need to educate yourself before voting.

However, we live in an age where politicians put spin on everything and nothing is fact. Therefore, the Filibuster is truly pointless.

[shockcityrocker]

I’d imagine Green Eggs & Ham doesn’t quite fall into the category of promoting healthy debate 🤷🏻‍♂️🤔

[sbvish]

Yeah but through most of history it was not use "so much" to block and kill legislation. It has become abused to the point where it needs reform or abolishing.

[archiebunker]

How unbelievably naive. To think people will come to the halls of power to debate and risk actually having their minds changed. We are simply seeing now how brazenly this is being abused, but the biggest mistake was thinking that human nature wouldn't have abused it in the first place.

[Chatty-zjwb]

Call, call, call your reps. Make them do the job you sent them to do. Pester until they block your number, then use another phone. CALL.

[robparker]

I get the historical use but frankly that was before clowns decided that green eggs and ham was proper debate.

[bradfallon]

I'd like to use 30 seconds of this video - between 3:15 and 3:45 - for an amateur podcast episode about the podcast and arguments for and against it. Could I have permission to sample this video for this purpose?

[stanislausklim]

I think not as a rule, rather by convention, filibustering should stay on topic for the most part. If we make it a rule, we get rid of the free deliberative aspect of the Senate. The goal should be trying to convince enough people. While that's not as possible now, we can work towards it and this could be a step in the right direction of reaching that goal. While I'm not a fan of Strom Thurmond's racism, I have to give the guy respect for staying on topic for the most part during his 24 hour filibuster, unlike Huey Long. No more just using debate to bash the other side to score political points. Also, no more political theater.

[alexabood]

I get how it can delay actions for a long time, but why don’t congressmen just simply get on with what they were doing before, after the filibusterer stops talking? They can only go on for so long so I see how they delay things, but I don’t get how it’s said the filibuster “blocks” actions

[kenwhittaker]

Your avatars are more diverse than reality.

[sefaatalay]

Gop senators blocked the hell out of every Obama bill with this thing I think it’s broken

[cameronobrien]

Too bad I had to filter through all the PBS, MSNBC, late night “comedy” and CNN videos to get to this one.

[cecynay]

Thanks! I'd like to have heard more about the talking filibuster vs not.

[robinbyrd]

Awful background music tends to cast the subject as a scheme or joke or unimportant. And the music is too loud and distracts from the content. And the content by the esteemed Utah Senator, is not the best he could do, I think. I am now looking for a better video.