Tweet
They're suggesting, I believe, that the Dems call the Republicans' bluff and actually force them to do a real filibuster, not just threaten to do one. If the Majority leader doesn't allow any further business onto the agenda until the current matter is resolved, he/she can force them to eventually vote on it, unless they *actually* filibuster (ie, speak for 24 hours in a row etc.)
[q="wiki"]
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster.[/q]
-From the wiki article linked above.
They wouldn't be able to keep up the speeches forever, so the odds are if the Dems were willing to fight it they'd eventually have to put it to a vote [like the civil rights act...]
[q="wiki"]
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster.[/q]
-From the wiki article linked above.
They wouldn't be able to keep up the speeches forever, so the odds are if the Dems were willing to fight it they'd eventually have to put it to a vote [like the civil rights act...]
Comment