It would be great to watch Senators deliberate in an open floor environment! Offering and tabling amendments, working deals. Part of problem nowadays is leadership top-down control over bills.
Upshot: even if talking filibuster's doomed, it could be good for Senate. /end
While I don't think this will work, I have nothing against the GOP trying it. Putting a bill on the floor and letting people debate it and offer amendments is the Senate at its best!
Upshot: talking filibuster entails Senate working, in some sense, as ideally envisioned. 13/
Currently, this is a fight *within* Senate GOP. Because if you don't have 50 Senators who want to try tactic, it *definitely* can't work. You need majority that believes this proper course.
Upshot: Senate rules aren't magic. If you don't have a bare majority, you're stuck. 12/
Others, like Senator Lee and Rachel Bovard think it can work, or that it can force compromise, or that it is a political winner even if it fails. That's not impossible!
Upshot: this is a good-faith debate over legislative/ political strategy. 11/
Controversy is over *strategic value* of forcing a talking filibuster. Many (including me) think it's highly unlikely to work. Puts a huge burden on majority, it lets minority dominate floor, it has almost always failed.
Upshot: forcing a talking filibuster rarely works. 10/
The controversy here is emphatically *not* about the propriety of the method for ending debate. Trying to wait out filibustering Senators has been part of legislative strategy almost forever.
Upshot: this is a perfectly valid strategy for majorities to try to pass bills. 9/
That's the whole thing, procedurally. It's not a gimmick or a sneaky thing. You just bring up a bill and stay on it, and see if you can wait out the people who are filibustering by debating.
Upshot: forcing a talking filibuster is not a rules change or "nuclear option." 8/
Fifth: The process of "forcing" a talking filibuster is just bringing up a bill and waiting for debate to end. Any Senator can make a motion to proceed (or to lay before Senate) at almost any time.
Upshot: To attempt majority passage of a bill, you just start the debate. 7/
procedures in place (like the reconciliation process), or you need debate to end naturally, because no Senator seeks recognition.
Upshot: the debate can end in the Senate without a supermajority. /6
Third: most of the time, leaders look to use cloture or a unanimous consent bargain to end debate. Cloture requires 60 votes. Unanimous consent requires that no one object.
Upshot: the most common ways to end debate in the Senate require a supermajority. 5/
Second: there are four main ways for debate to end on a debatable motion in the Senate: naturally, unanimous consent, via expedited procedures, or via cloture. These methods vary in numerical threshold needed.
Upshot: there are multiple ways to end debate. 4/
Ok. First point: the filibuster doesn't exist in Senate rules. It's a *consequence* of the rules, which lack a way for a bare majority to easily force an end to debate. If debate doesn't end, there's no vote.
Upshot: to filibuster, you just get the floor, start talking. 3/
First, some links to previous writing
*My blog post basics (blog.mattglassman.net/the-talking-...)
*Discussion of CRA (blog.mattglassman.net/more-on-the-...)
*Video on talking filibuster (fivepoints.mattglassman.net/p/talking-fi...)
*Discussion of 1893 Talking Filibuster (x.com/MattGlassman...) 2/
A fair amount of confusion about the talking filibuster comes from nomenclature; it messes people up b/c (1) minorities filibuster; but (2) the talking filibuster is described as a *majority* tactic ("the GOP should use the talking filibuster.")
Let's straighten this out. 1/
When we say the president is *politically* rather than legally constrained in warmaking, what exactly does that mean? Don't overthink it.
blog.mattglassman.net/notes-on-the...
Question for those knowledgeable about such things (I'm totally ignorant about this stuff): was the closing of Hormuz an expected Iranian maneuver in this spot, or was the conventional assessment that threats to do so were bluffs?
Once upon a time, today was important. On the old congressional calendar, lame ducks, and the fallibility of the Founders.
open.substack.com/pub/mattglas...
Thanks for the comments, always appreciate it!
More on the talking filibuster: let's talk about its role in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and analogizing the CRA to the current debate over the SAVE Act.
blog.mattglassman.net/more-on-the-...
Honestly, I've tried public reply on social media and it doesn't work for me; debating strangers yields a very low signal to noise ratio.
My initial thoughts on Iran, with lots of links to people more knowledgeable than me.
blog.mattglassman.net/iran/
Using all of my strength to resist my CRS instinct to reply *War Powers RESOLUTION* to like 60,000 posts.
Thanks!
really liked this @mattglassman312.bsky.social on the tariff case and the legislative veto (also shoutout to @joshchafetz.bsky.social) blog.mattglassman.net/the-court-th...
And a big shout-out to @joshchafetz.bsky.social, whose excellent forthcoming law review piece on the subject, "The Chadha Presidency," was enormously helpful in shaping my thoughts, as were discussions we had about it.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
My take on Learning Resources v. Trump: the elephant in the room in Chadha and the legislative veto.
fivepoints.mattglassman.net/p/the-court-...
Everyone—everyone!—is worried that no one is hanging out anymore. There’s a simple solution: get over yourself and start inviting people over to your home. It’s so easy you’ll feel stupid after you start.
blog.mattglassman.net/you-should-i...
I am going to write this up in excruciating detail on my Substack on Friday, but here's my working outline of the argument for now.
SCOTUS, tariffs, IEEPA, and the legislative veto: we're all looking for the guy who did this...
blog.mattglassman.net/the-court-th...
I have now finished reading the SCOTUS decision in the tariff case, and all I can say is that this entire 170 page mess of opinions is silently screaming for the return of the legislative veto, which conveniently was taken away by---you guessed it---the Court.
Here's the full post:
goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com/p/why-this-y...
