On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Doug Henwood wrote:
>> of "unlimited debate;" and that unlimited debate is founded on the
>> filibuster.
>
> According to Tom Geoghegan, there have been very few instances of such
> debate in the Senate's history. And in the old days, they actually had
> to talk. Now all they have to do is express a wish.
Yep. And the two go together. When they had to talk, it was terrible ordeal for both sides. (Especially back in the days of horse and buggy. That's why there was only 22 filibusters in the whole 19C -- the era they are supposedly identified with.) That's why you didn't do it unless it was really, really important. When they changed Rule 22 in 1975, they defined that away, which is what made it so easy, which is what led to strangulation.
The irony is that the whole purpose of the 1975 rule change was to *ease* the grip of the filibusters. This is one of history's great examples of unintended effects.
Which is what filibusters have always been. The Senate started under the standard Robert's Rules, where majority vote cuts off debate. They made a rule change -- and forgot the clause about ending the debate, completely intentionally.
Michael