The Senate filibuster is an odd rule. It says 60 votes out of the 100 Senators are necessary to end debate on a piece of proposed legislation.
Absent those 60 votes, the legislation never gets put to a vote. The effect is that it takes not just a majority of the Senate – 51 votes out of 100 – to pass legislation. It takes a supra-majority of 60.
The filibuster rule is not in the Constitution. In fact, it’s not even in a statute. It’s simply a rule dreamed up by the Senate. In various forms, it goes back to the 19th century, and has been tweaked many times since then.
The original idea behind the filibuster was this: If Senators want to keep debating some proposed legislation, then – politicians being politicians – they should. Talk is not just cheap, but good, and so more talk is better.
But – politicians being politicians again – they soon abused their right to talk. Filibusters became not a way to keep talking about legislation, but a way to kill it. Legislation supported by 59 Senators, which typically meant Senators from both parties, could be killed by just 41 senators opposing it.
The result has been the occasional paralysis of the Senate. Controversial legislation cannot get passed unless it falls within one of the limited exceptions to the filibuster rule.
This outcome frustrated Democrats a few years ago, because it enabled the Republicans to stop the confirmation of a few of the controversial federal judges nominated by Barack Obama. Republicans didn’t stop all confirmations, mind you, but only the ones they especially disliked. Obama still got the great majority of his judges confirmed, and we still see them in action.
This filibustering of judicial nominations did not start with the Republicans, of course. Democrats were at least as adept at the practice and, arguably, were the ones to start the practice.
For example, a brilliant and highly qualified nominee by George W. Bush name Miguel Estrada was filibuster by the Democrats. And then again. And again, and again. And again, and again. and again.
Seven times, the Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada.
When the Republicans repaid the filibustering favor, it didn’t sit well with the Democrats. The Democrat Senate leader was a sleazy old battle ax named Harry Reid who served in, or at least enjoyed, the Senate for 30 years and mysteriously amassed a fortune doing so. He threatened to, and did, abolish the filibuster for ordinary judicial nominations. From that time forward, it took only 51 Senators to break a filibuster on ordinary judicial nominations.
You might reasonably ask how he got the 60 votes to abolish the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Here’s where it gets curious. It takes 60 Senators to overcome a filibuster on proposed legislation, but it takes only 51 to change the Senate rules allowing for filibusters. And so, with a simple majority, Senator Reid jammed through his change to the rule requiring a supra-majority to confirm a judicial nominee, to require only a simple majority.
The Republicans warned Senator Reid and his Democrat colleagues that they would regret abolishing the filibuster. They warned that someday the tables would be turned, and it would be the Republicans who would take advantage of the power to confirm judicial nominations with a bare majority of 51 Senators, rather than the traditional 60 Senators.
That’s what happened, in spades. Senator Reid abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations with the exception of Supreme Court nominations. In 2017, the Republicans saw his bid and raised him.
President Trump had the opportunity to nominate three Supreme Court Justices in his first term to replace conservative and liberal Justices who died in office, and a moderate Justice who retired.
Unsurprisingly, President Trump nominated three conservatives. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats went ballistic and promised to filibuster. Unsurprisingly, the Republicans took the natural step of abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, just as the Democrats had for lower court nominations. Unsurprisingly, all three were confirmed by Republican Senate majorities (even though the Democrats shamelessly defamed Justice Kavanaugh).
Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court is now 6-3 conservative, and will remain conservative for the foreseeable future.
This 6-3 conservative Supreme Court has been a key component to President Trump’s power. On political cases, the outcome is generally (not always) five or six conservatives to four or three liberals.
Which brings us to the government “shutdown.” Of course, the government is not shut down, but the word “shutdown” generates clicks for click-baiting whores that comprise today’s media, and so that’s the term they use – together with the suggestion that it’s all the fault of the Republicans because they refuse to un-do the tax bill that was passed last spring.
But that’s just an excuse. The real reason for the “shutdown” is that the Democrat leader, Now York’s Charles Schumer, is panicking that a loony Democrat woman with initials for a name will challenge him in a primary and defeat his ambition to stay in the Senate well into his 80s. He’s in need of loony lib cred in a state that prizes such stuff. (See, e.g. Zohran Mamdani.)
And so, the Democrats have filibustered the legislation to keep the government open a dozen times.
In ordinary times, the rank-and-file Democrats would go along with Schumer’s selfish shutdown scheme, for about as long as they can say those four words fast.
But in today’s political climate, even rank-and-file Democrats oppose practically everything Trump proposes, just because it’s Trump who proposes it. When the leftist base of the Democrats demand brave “resistance” to Trump, the rest of the Democrats willing grovel in compliance to show their bravery.
The Republicans could thwart the Democrats and end the shutdown in hours by taking a simple majority vote, a la Harry Reid, to suspend the filibuster. They wouldn’t even have to abolish it. They could do a one-time suspension of it. With 53 of the 100 Senators being Republican, that one-time suspension should pass.
By the way, if the Republicans were to abolish the filibuster for everything, not just as a one-time exercise, then they could run roughshod over the Democrats for at least the next year until the 2026 mid-term elections.
I like the idea of running roughshod over Democrats who are “bravely” groveling to their crazy leftist base.
Ah, you say, but then the Democrats would turn the tables against the Republicans next time the Democrats have a majority of the Senate.
Yes, they will.
But they will do that whether the Republicans suspend the filibuster now or not. These are Democrats, by golly. Do you expect them to abide by the filibuster later just because the Republicans do now? Do you expect them to play fair?
the Aspen beat 
If I remember correctly from my government civics classes in the 80s, when the Senate was engaged in the filibuster, the senators filibustering were required to be in attendance and speak on the floor until they were done. The Senate was in session, and all senators had to be in attendance. Cots and sleeping bags were brought in as senators were kept in session by the sergeant-at-arms.
Once the filibustering senators had worn themselves out with long-winded speeches, and reading names out of the telephone book, then the debate was over, and the voting proceeded.
The Senate leadership just needs to enforce the filibuster and make those senators stand on the floor making their debate speeches for hours on end, while maybe even wearing adult Depend diapers, until they are too pooped to debate anymore.
If this had been enforced by the GOP Senate leadership beginning October 1, then the filibuster would be over by now, the simple majority vote could have been taken, and the federal government would be “open” by now.
This is the lazy man’s filibuster. The minority gets to call a filibuster without actually going through the long and tiring process of actually carrying out a real filibuster.
I think the minority needs to be held to their filibuster, lock, stock and barrel. All Senators sequestered in the Senate until the filibuster is done. If a senator leaves the Senate chamber, then he cannot take the floor to speak. Let them all stew in there in that hothouse chamber. Maybe some thought Capitol Hill maintenance guy (who hasn’t been paid his GS paycheck) can shutdown the Senate’s HVAC system for “maintenance?!?”
But … the simple truth is the Senate doesn’t do REAL filibusters anymore. But they should be compelled to go back to this, and then I think all of us would see a lot less filibusters in the future.
Just my two-cents worth … g’day!
Bla bla bla bla bla. Powers-that-be are in a big-huge MONEY FIGHT, right now, so let’s stay on topic. We are TRILLIONS, trillions in the hole, and nobody seems to have an answer. Executive way to handle this is to keep govt. CLOSED for several months, and do things the milei way, and keep cutting spending. If the senior citizens on capitol hill can’t play nice and figure out how to manage our national finance, then team DOGE can and will be invoked, and you can ALL go to bed with no dinner. We have supercomputers, people with master’s degrees, people with decades of experience and deep knowledge, so, what’s the problem. Stop promising money we don’t HAVE, to people who probably don’t honestly need it. Let’s also start seeing best-effort financial reports, starting with HHS/Medicare. Let’s cut the crap, shall we? 38 trillion debt and counting. FWA, FWA. There are foreign elements in play, here. India, china, mexico, etc.