A Filibuster Is Commonly Used in the House of Representatives

Filibuster is a term for any attempt to cake or filibuster Senate action on a bill or other matter by speaking at length on a proposal, introducing multiple procedural motions, or engaging in other obstructive actions. In short, a filibuster occurs when debate is extended, allowing ane or more than senators to delay or entirely forbid a vote on a given proposal. A filibuster can be used equally a technical tool to preclude an actual vote or action from proceeding.

Though the earliest utilize of filibusters required a senator to hold and go along the floor through an extended menstruum of speaking, the aim of filibusters - extending contend indefinitely - could afterwards exist attained without the need to hold the floor. Under the Senate's two-track system, which was adopted in the 1970s, whatsoever ane senator can filibuster one activeness while the Senate continues to go along on other business organization. Sometimes referred to every bit a silent or stealth filibuster, this method was designed to continue Senate business moving, but it has also increased the number of filibusters used. Senators can but threaten to employ a filibuster and the effect is the same, but without any of the political costs in being seen as delaying action on Senate business by speaking for an extended catamenia on the flooring of the Senate.

Usage

The Senate operates on the principle of unlimited fence. Senate rules allow any member or group of senators to speak every bit long as they feel is necessary on an issue. This, in theory, would allow debate on an consequence to keep indefinitely. To forbid this, Senate rules let for the invocation of cloture. Cloture is a movement that closes debate on an effect and proceeds to a vote. It takes lx votes in the Senate to invoke cloture, which ends a filibuster. Without the 60 votes needed for cloture, a filibuster can go on indefinitely, effectively blocking a vote on a proposal.^[1]

According to the Congressional Research Service, "[F]ilibustering does non depend on the use of whatever specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is ever a affair of judgment. Information technology is besides a thing of degree; filibusters may be conducted with greater or lesser conclusion and persistence." Considering of changes to the Congress in the 21st century, many filibusters never truly happen. It is not easy to label and place filibusters in a strict mode, precisely because a delay need not exist the standard depiction of a public official standing at a podium and talking endlessly. This makes comparing the number of filibusters to happen by decade somewhat of a complicated thing.^[2]

The U.S. Business firm of Representatives does not use filibusters. In the lower chamber, a simple majority tin can end debate on a proposal.^{[3] [4]}

Types of delay

The delay is a means by which to extent debate, and subsequently prevent a vote, on matters before a legislative trunk. In the U.S. Senate, the filibuster is used in ane of three contexts. A legislative filibuster is used to prevent a vote on issues on the legislative calendar, such every bit proposed legislation, while an executive fiilbuster and a judicial filibuster are used to prevent a bedchamber vote on nominations to fill vacancies in those respective branches of government.

In a December 2022 interview with Politician, outgoing Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) "predicted it'due south just a matter of time before the filibuster is done away with altogether," however, when asked if he would modify Senate rules to permit senators to terminate contend on legislation by a simple bulk, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that he would not. In an Apr 4, 2017, printing conference, McConnell said, "who would exist the biggest beneficiary of that correct now? It would be the majority, right? ... There'due south not a unmarried senator in the majority who thinks we ought to change the legislative filibuster. Not 1." McConnell went on to promise that he would non modify the rules for the legislative delay during his tenure as bulk leader.^{[five] [half dozen]}

In tweets dated May 2, 2017, however, President Donald Trump (R) stated that "we....either elect more Republican Senators in 2022 or modify the rules now to 51%. Our land needs a good 'shutdown' in September to fix mess!" These comments were seen every bit Trump giving support to the thought of getting rid of the legislative filibuster.^{[7] [8]} In response, Senator McConnell said "there is an overwhelming majority on a bipartisan footing not interested in changing the way the Senate operates on the legislative agenda" and that such a move would "fundamentally change the way the Senate has worked for a very long time. We're not going to do that." Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) agreed with McConnell, maxim "I recall the thought of using the nuclear selection for legislative stuff is pretty much dead."^[9]

Meaning

The term filibuster comes from a Dutch give-and-take vrijbuiter, according to the Senate Historical Office. This discussion was later adopted into French (flibustier), English (fleebooter), and Spanish (filibustero). The word translates as freebooter or, merely, pirate. The word was originally used to describe someone who stole haul, loot, or treasure. According to National Public Radio, the showtime instance of a legislator personally beingness called a delay equally a means of accusing the legislator of beingness an obstructionist was in 1889; the first use of delay to describe a delay tactic on legislation was in 1890.^{[10] [1] [11] [12]}

Background

Early history

Commodity I of the Usa Constitution describes the powers of the legislative branch. Commodity I, Department five states that "each Firm may determine the rules of its proceedings." In April 1789, the House and the Senate adopted articulation rules to guide both houses. The rules allowed for a uncomplicated bulk to call for a vote without further debate on the previous question, but no dominion prevented a member of either the Firm or Senate to speak without end. To do so, however, was considered unseemly. Thomas Jefferson, in his transmission of parliamentary practice for the Senate which he composed during his time equally vice president, required under Section 17, Rule ix, that "[due north]o one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously."^{[12] [13]}

Though the original rules of the Senate allowed a elementary majority of legislators to make a motion to end debate, in 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr urged the Senate to eliminate this rule. In 1806, the Senate amended its rules to allow for unlimited debate. According to Brookings Institution senior swain Sarah A. Folder, "Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a uncomplicated bulk to cut off argue. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on fence, leading to the first real-alive filibuster in 1837."^{[14] [xv] [sixteen] [17]}

Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic wrote virtually the early use of the filibuster, stating "no one really attempted to use it until 1837, when a minority cake of Whig senators prolonged fence to preclude Andrew Jackson'due south allies from expunging a resolution of censure against him." The Senate formally adopted a rule of unlimited contend in 1856, only there was no mechanism to stop debate nether the rules. Yglesias noted that "the unlimited-debate rule eventually became so cumbersome that senators made attempts at reform in ... 1873, 1883, and 1890, all unsuccessful." In 1892, the U.Southward. Supreme Court held in United states 5. Ballin that, as a parliamentary torso, the Senate was gratis to amend its procedural rules by elementary bulk; nevertheless, a rule alter could be prevented by a delay in the Senate.^{[17] [12] [xviii]}

The adoption of cloture

According to Tonja Jacobi and Jeff VanDam, Globe State of war I provided the impetus needed to change the rules on unlimited debate. They notation^[12]

"

At the outset of American involvement in Earth War I, Democrats had initiated an organized series of filibusters against a bill to arm American ships against German submarines at the stop of the Senate session — more or less guaranteeing the neb would not pass. A furious President Woodrow Wilson referred publicly to these senators every bit a 'little grouping of willful men,' and a 'wave of indignation at their activity ... stirred the country.' The public burned senators in effigy and sent them death threats. Information technology was then that '[p]ublic pressure to change the rules of the Senate was probably greater than at any other fourth dimension in Senate history.'[19]

"

As a result of these actions, the Senate amended its rules to permit fence to be shut off past a 2-thirds vote of those senators present to vote. This procedure is known as cloture. The two-thirds requirement was in upshot from 1917 until 1949. The cloture dominion provided little deterrent during this menstruation. From the 65th to the 81st United States Congress, that is from 1917-1950, at that place were 21 motions to invoke cloture in the Senate; in merely 4 instances was cloture invoked. Those motions that passed are listed below.^{[12] [20]}

• November 13, 1919: Cloture was invoked to end contend over the Treaty of Versailles (South.139).
• Jan 22, 1926: Cloture was invoked to terminate debate of the World Court protocol (Southward.Res. v).
• February 12, 1927: Cloture was invoked to terminate debate on the Branch Banking Act (H.R. two).
• February 26, 1927: Cloture was invoked to end argue on the Prohibition Bureau (H.R. 10729).

In 1949, the Senate modified its rules to require a two-thirds vote of the entire chamber to invoke cloture. Ten years later, in 1959, the Senate returned to its previous rule of requiring a 2-thirds vote of those nowadays to vote.

The ii-track system

In 1964, during debate over what became the Civil Rights Human action, southern Democrats filibustered for over 75 hours in an attempt to forbid the bill's passage. In an effort to remedy the issue of time to come filibusters, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) instituted 2 modifications. The first was to strength cloture votes on filibuster threats; the second was to implement a two-track arrangement. This system, instituted in 1972, provided senators the option to filibuster while the chamber considers other legislation. In 1975, the Senate once again revised its rules to let for cloture to be invoked by a vote of sixty senators, with the exception of Senate rules, which then required a two-thirds vote. Some argue that the 2-runway dominion has atomic number 82 to an increment in the use of silent filibusters. During a silent filibuster, a member does non need to speak on the flooring to cake a vote from happening and can even filibuster by email. A senator is not required to speak in public to forbid the passage of a bill. The senator merely needs to outcome a alert that there are enough votes to support a filibuster.^{[iii] [21] [12]}

Impact of the 2-runway organisation

According to Jacobi and VanDam, the affect of the ii-rails organization has been profound. They write,^{[12] [22] [23]}

"

The adoption of ii tracks 'changed the game profoundly.' It was followed fairly immediately by a period in which at that place are more filibusters than ever before. There have been nearly twice every bit many Senate actions to defeat filibusters ... in the last 10 sessions of Congress than in the previous thirty-eight sessions combined. The number of motions to defeat filibusters from the 103rd Congress to through the 112th was 888; the number from the 65th through the 102nd was 483. That the number exploded afterwards the two-runway system was adopted is not coincidental. The organization of stealth filibustering 'allows [senators] to obstruct Senate business but without paying much, if any, political cost for doing so.' It has led to a Senate where an invisible filibuster by default hangs over whatsoever controversial legislation ... a Senate, in other words, where minorities reign.[19]

"

The nuclear choice

The nuclear pick, as well known as the ramble option, is a procedure that allows the majority party to alter a Senate dominion or precedent with a uncomplicated majority vote. Commonly, the Senate needs a 2-thirds vote to invoke cloture on a resolution to change its standing rules.^[24] In 1917, Senator Thomas J. Walsh (D-Mont.) proposed using the constitutional choice for the first fourth dimension.^[25] Changing Senate rules in this way was later nicknamed the nuclear selection because senators have said that it should only exist used as a final selection. According to The Wall Street Journal, "Sometime Sen. Trent Lott (R., Miss.) was the first to employ it in this context, and the name has stuck for several reasons. First, changing the Senate rules breaks longstanding precedent. Also, the Republicans — and the Democrats previously — know that when the majority party becomes the minority party, equally inevitably happens, that political party would be stripped of most of its leverage, thanks to its ain rule alter."^[26]

Members of the Senate have threatened to utilize the nuclear option on multiple occasions, merely it was not used until Nov 2013 when Senate Bulk Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used information technology to allow judicial nominations to be approved with 51 votes instead of lx, with the exception of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom.^{[26] [25]}

Reid invoked nuclear option, 2013

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked the nuclear option in the Senate. The option was used to change the vote requirement for executive nominee confirmations to be considered on the floor. Prior to the rule change, senators could filibuster until a cloture movement requiring sixty votes was passed in the chamber. The nuclear option inverse the requirement to a unproblematic bulk. The threat of the nuclear option occurred in many previous sessions of Congress, but none had invoked the procedure.^{[27] [28]}

The nuclear option was invoked in response to Senate Republicans blocking the nomination of 3 D.C. Circuit Court judges. The rule change passed by a vote of 52-48, with Carl Levin, Joe Manchin and Marker Pryor being the only Democrats to vote in opposition. According to the Congressional Research Service, of the 67 times betwixt 1967 and 2012 that the filibuster was used on a judicial nominee, 31 were during the Obama administration.^[28] The change in rules did non apply to legislation or Supreme Courtroom nominees.^[27]

McConnell invoked nuclear option, 2017

See too: Supreme Court vacancy, 2017: An overview

On April 3, 2017, Senate Democrats announced that they had a sufficient number of votes to sustain a filibuster against the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.South. Supreme Court. In anticipation of an expected filibuster, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) indicated that he was prepared to restrict the use of filibusters on Supreme Courtroom nominations. Essentially, McConnell said that Republicans would alter the rules to allow a Supreme Court nominee to exist confirmed with 51 votes instead of 60. On April 6, 2017, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on a Gorsuch's nomination. McConnell and so raised a indicate of lodge that the cloture vote should be upheld under the precedent established in 2013 and practical to all nominations. That precedent called for a elementary bulk vote to shut debate on all nominations. That bespeak of social club was denied. McConnell appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was whether to retain the lx-vote threshold for ending debate on Supreme Court nominations. A 52-48 bulk along party lines voted against retaining the 60-vote threshold to terminate debate on Supreme Court nominations, opting instead for a simple bulk being required to cease argue—the nuclear option. Under the new threshold, the Senate afterwards voted to cease contend on Gorsuch's nomination. Gorsuch was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court the adjacent day.^{[29] [30] [31] [32]}

Senate limits postal service-cloture debate on presidential nominees, 2019

On Apr 3, 2019, the Senate voted to change the torso'southward precedent and reduce post-cloture debate allowed on executive nominees below the Cabinet-level and federal district courtroom nominees from 30 hours to 2 hours. 2 separate votes on executive nominees and judicial nominees passed 51-48. All but two Senate Republicans—Susan Collins (R-Me.) and Mike Lee (R-Ut.)—voted for the changes, while all Senate Democrats who voted opposed the changes. To enact the changes, the Senate used the nuclear choice rather than changing its standing rules.^[33]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said his caucus pursued the change due to obstruction by Senate Democrats. He said, "The all-encompassing, systematic nature of this obstruction is non office of the Senate's important tradition of minority rights. It is a new deviation from that tradition. And this break with tradition is hurting the Senate, hamstringing our duly elected president, and denying citizens the government they elected." He also said that many Democrats privately supported the alter and would certainly favor it if they controlled the White House.^[34]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-Due north.Y.) criticized the change, particularly with regard to judicial nominees. He said, "Two hours for a lifetime engagement is unacceptable. Two hours for a lifetime appointment with huge influence on people'southward lives is unacceptable. It's ridiculous."^[33]

Senate Democrats also said McConnell pursued like tactics while in the minority. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said, "[McConnell] seems to take completely forgotten the Obama assistants. He led the most famous blockade that's always happened in the Senate. And that was the blockade of Merrick Garland … it was shameful."^[35]

McConnell responded by criticizing Senate Democrats for using the nuclear pick to lower the cloture threshold from 60 votes to 51 votes in 2013. He said, "I said at the fourth dimension I didn't similar the way information technology was washed. And I idea perchance the other side would rue the day they did it. Amazingly plenty, about a year and a half later I'm majority leader. Funny how these things change, isn't it?"^[33]

Ballotpedia analysis

On Apr 5, 2019, Ballotpedia released an analysis of the changes in fence rules and the possible effects on federal judicial vacancies.

To come across our full analysis, click here.

Cloture motions in history

Below are two data tables presented to show the frequency with which the Senate has taken action on cloture. The data are sorted into the number of motions filed for cloture, the number of votes on cloture held, and the number of times that cloture was invoked, meaning that 60 senators agreed to pass the cloture motion and end contend, finer killing an ongoing filibuster.

The Senate adopted rules for cloture beginning in 1917. The data in this chart beneath show Senate actions on cloture from the first Congress in which the cloture rule was adopted (the 65th Congress) to the nigh recently completed Congress (the 114th Congress). All information are taken from the U.S. Senate website.

This line chart depicts the same information above. Consistent with the changes made by Senator Mansfield described to a higher place, Senate actions on cloture take increased significantly since the 1970s, indicating that the attendant use of the filibuster has increased during that fourth dimension.

Filibusters and reconciliation

At that place are some who debate that, in an effort to circumvent the usage of the filibuster, an increasing preference is being given to the process of using budget reconciliation.^{[36] [37] [38]} According to the Center on Upkeep and Policy Priorities (CBPP), "reconciliation allows for expedited consideration of sure tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. In the Senate, reconciliation bills aren't subject to filibuster and the scope of amendments is limited."^[39] Tonja Jacobi and Jeff VanDam argue that there is a strategic convergence in the utilise of reconciliation. They write, "in dissimilarity to ordinary bills, which are subject to a delay that requires 60 votes to overcome through cloture, debate on reconciliation bills in the Senate is limited to twenty hours. ... such stringent restrictions on debate were only intended to utilise to budgetary procedures, but the very fact of their stringency made them more than broadly appealing to avert the across-the-lath de facto supermajority requirement that the institutionalization of the filibuster had created. We maintain that it is no coincidence that reconciliation emerged as a majoritarian alternative to the filibuster during the verbal time period when the filibuster became most prevalent."^[12]

History and use of reconciliation

Budget reconciliation was created past the Congressional Budget Deed of 1974. Under the act, reconciliation can exist used on legislation that changes the federal debt limit, revenue, or spending. As it relates to spending, reconciliation can be used to consider changes in spending on entitlement programs with the exception of Social Security. Considering appropriations under mandatory spending are typically codified, amendments to those laws are often required. Reconciliation has not been used to change 'discretionary' spending because the procedure to alter discretionary spending is typically addressed through the annual monetary process.

Process

For reconciliation measures to be considered past the Congress, both chambers must agree on a budget resolution. This resolution must include resolution instructions. Resolution instructions incorporate four elements:

• ane. the relevant commission(s) to which the instruction is directed,
• 2. the deadline past which committee compliance must exist achieved,
• iii. the specific modify to either revenues, spending, or the debt (in dollars), and
• 4. the time period over which those budgetary changes must be achieved.

One time both chambers agree on a budget resolution, committees accept until their specified deadlines in the resolution guidelines to produce reconciliation measures. Per the Congressional Research Service, committees are by and large timely, only instances when committees have responded later on their deadlines have occurred. Typically, in that location is no consequence in failing to encounter deadlines. Once a committee develops reconciliation measures, the committee and then votes on whether to report the resolution. Once a measure is reported to the bedchamber, and the measure passes, resolution of differences between the chambers is typically addressed in conference. The Senate, however, limits debate time on a conference upkeep resolution.^{[40] [41]}

Congress is limited to using reconciliation for simply one bill for each of the fiscal changes provided for in the reconciliation instructions, that is, changes to revenues, spending, and the debt limit. A unmarried bill may make changes to all three, or two of three, but Congress cannot consider multiple bills satisfying the same pedagogy in a budget resolution. Thus, "Congress may not consider multiple revenue enhancement bills under reconciliation procedures, or a neb that includes revenue and outlays and so some other revenue enhancement bill under the same budget resolution."^[40]

The Byrd Rule

In the Senate, reconciliation measures are subject to the Byrd Rule, named for the sponsor of the dominion, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). The Byrd Rule permits senators to block provisions of reconciliation bills that are considered extraneous. According to the Congressional Research Service, "broadly speaking, the rule prohibits inclusion in reconciliation of matter unrelated to the deficit reduction goals of the reconciliation process. A provision is considered to exist extraneous if it falls under one or more of the following 6 definitions:

• it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues or a modify in the terms and conditions under which outlays are fabricated or revenues are collected;
• it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
• it is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the championship or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation mensurate;
• it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
• information technology would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the 'upkeep window' covered by the reconciliation measure; and,
• it recommends changes in Social Security.^[42]

Senators may raise parliamentary objections against whatever provision they believe to exist extraneous nether the Byrd rule. If sustained, the extraneous textile is deleted and consideration of the legislation continues without the extraneous material.. In considering a conference understanding, a successful claiming under the Byrd dominion obligates the Senate to send the legislation (minus the extraneous provisions) back to the Firm for further activeness. An objection by a senator is required, all the same, otherwise textile that is extraneous may remain in reconciliation legislation if no senator makes an objection. The Congressional Upkeep Act permits the Senate to waive the Byrd rule if 60 senators agree to do so.^{[39] [42]}

Advantages of reconciliation over filibusters

Though senators are express at the number of bills that can be passed via budget reconciliation for whatever given Congress, scholars Tonja Jacobi and Jeff VanDam note a political advantage for a partisan majority in the Senate to using reconciliation. They write,^[12]

"

every bit nosotros consider reconciliation today, the defining feature of a reconciliation nib is its self-imposed limitation on floor debate, the element that brings reconciliation bills into disharmonize with the filibuster. In most matters in the modern Senate, lx votes are needed to invoke cloture, or the end of contend. Whatsoever one senator can force a bill's proponents to find 60 votes for their proposal, as whatever senator can threaten to filibuster whatsoever matter. But that is non and then with reconciliation. As adopted, the reconciliation police provides that '[d]ebate in the Senate on whatever reconciliation bill ... and all amendments thereto and debatable motions and appeals in connexion therewith, shall be limited to not more than 20 hours.' Because debate by definition on a reconciliation bill is not unlimited, there can exist no filibuster to hold it up. ... In the absence of strengthened party subject area, so, alter to the filibuster volition come non through reform, merely through the continued rise of reconciliation. What began as a ... budget balancing machinery has become i of the primary means past which majorities laissez passer of import controversial legislation — both financial and noun legislative policies.[19]

"

Reconciliation usage

Reconciliation was created through the Congressional Budget Human activity of 1974. The data below indicate the full number of reconciled bills that were passed out of the Congress since upkeep reconciliation was adopted. In four instances, the reconciled bill was vetoed by the president. President Bill Clinton vetoed iii of those bills and President Barack Obama vetoed the quaternary. None of the vetoes were overridden by the Congress. All other reconciled bills were signed into law past the president.

Timeline

Beneath is an abbreviated timeline of events related to the delay, cloture, and reconciliation.

• 1806: Senate rules were modified to let for unlimited debate
• 1837: The first filibuster was used in the Senate.
• 1856: The Senate formally adopted its rule for unlimited debate
• 1873: An effort to reform the filibuster rule failed.
• 1883: An attempt to reform the filibuster rule failed.
• 1890: An attempt to reform the filibuster dominion failed.
• 1917: The Senate adopted the cloture rule. The rule required a two-thirds vote of senators nowadays to vote in order to invoke cloture.
• 1919: Cloture was invoked for the beginning fourth dimension.
• 1949: The Senate modified its rules to require a two-thirds vote of the entire sleeping room in order to invoke cloture.
• 1957: U.Due south. Sen. Strom Thurmond (D-S.C.) staged the longest filibuster in U.S. history -- 24 hours and 18 minutes – to delay a vote on the Ceremonious Rights Act of 1957.
• 1959: The Senate returned to its previous rule requiring ii-thirds of senators present to vote in order to invoke cloture.
• 1972: The Senate adopted a two-track organisation for legislation, permitting the Senate to consider other legislation while a delay was ongoing.
• 1974: Congress passed the Congressional Budget Act, introducing provisions for budget reconciliation.
• 1975: The Senate modified its rules to reduce the number of senators present to vote needed to invoke cloture from two-thirds to lx.
• 1980: Congress used reconciliation for the first time to pass the Double-decker Reconciliation Act of 1980.
• 1985: Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) introduced a point of order to strike inapplicable matter from reconciliation bills.
• 1990: The Senate permanently adopted the "Byrd dominion" for reconciliation bills.
• 2005: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) threatened to remove the apply of filibusters for federal judicial nominees except for nominees to the Supreme Court. A bipartisan group of senators called the Gang of xiv reached an agreement to move nominations forward without invoking this maneuver, which had been dubbed the nuclear option.
• 2013: Senate Bulk Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) modified Senate rules to prohibit the use of filibusters on federal judicial nominees except for nominees to the U.South. Supreme Court.
• 2017: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) modified Senate rules to prohibit the utilize of filibusters on any federal judicial nominees, including nominees to the Supreme Court.

Come across besides

• United States Senate
• Supermajority
• The states Congress
• Cloture
• Nuclear option

External links

• U.S. Senate: Filibuster and Cloture
• U.Southward. Senate: Cloture Rule

Footnotes

1. ↑ ^{one.0 1.1} United States Senate, "Delay and Cloture," accessed April 5, 2017
2. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate," accessed April v, 2017
3. ↑ ^{three.0 3.1} Constitution Center, "Fascinating Facts nearly Senate Filibusters," accessed March 7, 2013
4. ↑ Time, "A Brief History of Filibusters," accessed April half dozen, 2017
5. ↑ Politician, "Reid predicts expiry of filibuster," December 8, 2016
6. ↑ Political leader, "McConnell promises non to kill filibuster for legislation," April iv, 2017
7. ↑ This Week, "Trump calls for ending legislative filibuster, 'good' government shutdown," May 2, 2017
8. ↑ Curl Telephone call, "Trump wants September shutdown to kill legislative delay," May two, 2017
9. ↑ The Colina, "McConnell shoots down Trump'south phone call to terminate the delay," May 2, 2017
10. ↑ Senate.gov, "Definitions and Glossary: Filibuster," accessed April 4, 2017
11. ↑ National Public Radio, "History of the word filibuster," May xviii, 2005
12. ↑ ^{12.0 12.1 12.ii 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8} University of California, Davis Law Review, "The filibuster and reconciliation: the futurity of majoritarian lawmaking in the U.S. Senate," 2013
13. ↑ Us Senate, "A manual of parliamentary practice for the apply of the Senate of the United States," original 1801, reprinted 1993
14. ↑ United States Senate, "Formative Years of the Senate," accessed February xv, 2016
15. ↑ Congressional Enquiry Service, "Senate Cloture Dominion," Dec v, 2011
16. ↑ Brookings.edu, "The History of the Filibuster," accessed April v, 2017
17. ↑ ^{17.0 17.1} The Atlantic, "The silenced majority," January/February 2009
18. ↑ Supreme Courtroom of the Usa, United States v. Ballin, February 29, 1892
19. ↑ ^{19.0 19.i 19.2} Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are owing to the original source.
20. ↑ U.s.a. Senate, "Cloture motions," accessed May 2, 2017
21. ↑ Washington Post, "The Silent Filibuster Explained," accessed March 7, 2013
22. ↑ The New York Times, "A I-track Senate," March x, 2010
23. ↑ Cornell University Law Library, "Is the filibuster ramble?" Apr 1, 2010
24. ↑ [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IN10875.pdf Congressional Research Service, "Eight Mechanisms to Enact Procedural Change in the U.S. Senate," November 13, 2018]
25. ↑ ^{25.0 25.1} Law.Harvard.edu, "The Constitutional Option To Change Senate Rules And Procedures: A Majoritarian Ways To Over Come The Filibuster," accessed April 5, 2017
26. ↑ ^{26.0 26.1} The Wall Street Journal, "What Is the Senate's 'Nuclear Selection'?" accessed Apr 5, 2017
27. ↑ ^{27.0 27.1} Politico, "Senate goes for 'nuclear pick,'" accessed November 21, 2013
28. ↑ ^{28.0 28.one} Washington Post, "Reid, Democrats trigger 'nuclear' choice; eliminate most filibusters on nominees," Nov 21, 2013
29. ↑ CNN, "Senate Dems achieve filibuster threshold on Gorsuch setting up 'nuclear option' change," accessed Apr 5, 2017
30. ↑ Senate.gov, "On the Cloture Motion (Motility to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of Neil K. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Acquaintance Justice of the Supreme Courtroom of the U.s.)," accessed April 6, 2017
31. ↑ CBS News, "Neil Gorsuch confirmation vote: Colorado senator won't try to block," April 3, 2017
32. ↑ U.South. Senate, "On the Nomination (Confirmation: Neil M. Gorsuch, of Colorado, to be an Acquaintance Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)," April seven, 2017
33. ↑ ^{33.0 33.1 33.ii} The Colina, "GOP triggers 'nuclear option' to speed up Trump picks," April 3, 2019
34. ↑ Politico, "Fourth dimension to Terminate the Democrats' Obstruction," Apr 1, 2019
35. ↑ Politico, "Republicans trigger 'nuclear pick' to speed Trump nominees," Apr 3, 2019
36. ↑ American Civil Liberties Union, "Congress-ese: Budget Reconciliation...Or How to Avoid a Filibuster," March 24, 2010
37. ↑ The Brookings Establish, "Truth and Reconciliation: Sidestepping the Filibuster," Apr twenty, 2009
38. ↑ Kaiser Wellness News, "Democrats' Strategy to Avoid Filibuster Carries Serious Risks," August 21, 2009
39. ↑ ^{39.0 39.1} Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Introduction to budget 'reconciliation'," November nine, 2016
40. ↑ ^{40.0 40.i} American Action Forum, "Budget reconciliation: a primer," January 24, 2017
41. ↑ Congressional Enquiry Service, "The Budget Reconciliation Procedure: Timing of Legislative Action," February 23, 2016
42. ↑ ^{42.0 42.i} Congressional Research Service, " The Upkeep Reconciliation Process: The Senate'south 'Byrd Rule'," November 22, 2016

v•e Usa Congress
Background	United States Senate • U.s. House of Representatives • United States Constitution • Federal Election Commission • Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee • National Republican Congressional Commission • Lifetime voting records • Cyberspace Worth of The states Senators and Representatives • Staff salaries of The states Senators and Representatives • Filing requirements for congressional candidates • Filling vacancies in the U.S. Senate • Classes of United States Senators • President Pro Tempore of the Senate • Us Speaker of the House • Filibuster
States' delegations	Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • Southward Carolina • Due south Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming • Non-voting members
Special elections	2021-2022 • 2019-2020 • 2017-2018 • 2015-2016 • 2013-2014
2022	Congress Elections • Senate Elections • House Elections • Candidates running for Congress
2020	Congress Elections • Senate Elections • House Elections • Candidates who ran for Congress
2018	Congress Elections • Senate Elections • Firm Elections • Candidates who ran for Congress
2016	Congress Elections • Senate Elections • House Elections • Candidates who ran for Congress
2014	Congress Elections • Senate Elections • Firm Elections • Candidates who ran for Congress
Sessions	117th U.s. Congress • 116th Usa Congress • 115th United States Congress • 114th U.s.a. Congress • 113th United States Congress • 112th United states of america Congress • 111th United States Congress • 110th United States Congress
Joint Congressional committees	Deficit Reduction • Printing • Tax • Library • Economic
U.S. Senate Committees	Aging • Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry • Appropriations • Military • Cyberbanking, Housing, and Urban Affairs • Budget • Commerce, Science and Transportation • Energy and Natural Resources • Environment and Public Works • Ethics (Select) • Finance • Foreign Relations • Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions • Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs • Indian Affairs • Intelligence (Select) • Judiciary • Rules and Administration • Small Business and Entrepreneurship • Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House Committees	Agriculture • Appropriations • Armed Services • Budget • Education and the Workforce • Energy and Commerce • Ethics • Financial Services • Foreign Affairs • Homeland Security • House Administration • Intelligence (Permanent Select) • Judiciary • Natural Resources • The states House of Representatives Commission on Oversight and Government Reform • Rules • Science, Space, and Technology • Small Business • Transportation and Infrastructure • Veterans' Affairs • Ways and Means
Super PACs	American Bridge 21st Century • American Crossroads • American Unity PAC • Campaign for Principal Accountability • Lodge for Growth Action • Congressional Leadership Fund • Cooperative of American Physicians IE Committee• Crossroads Generation • Ending Spending Action Fund • Endorse Liberty • Fair Share Action • FreedomWorks for America • Authorities Integrity Fund • Firm Bulk PAC • Independence United states Fund • League of Conservation Voters • Freedom for All PAC • Senate Majority PAC • National Clan of Realtors • NEA Advancement Fund • NextGen Climate Action • Now or Never PAC • Planned Parenthood Votes • Ready for Hillary • Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund • Restore America'due south Voice PAC • SEIU Pea-Federal • Women Vote! • Workers' Vox
Personal Gain Alphabetize	Changes in Net Worth of U.S. Senators and Representatives • The Donation Concentration Metric

five•e Ballotpedia
About	Overview • What people are proverb • Back up Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Task opportunities
	Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Ballot Product and Engineering science Strategy Communications: Kayla Harris • Megan Dark-brown • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Key • Kari Berger • Hannah Nelson Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Lauren Dixon • Kelly Rindfleisch Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Katharine Frey • Jace Lington • Jimmy McAllister Tech: Matt Latourelle, Tech Managing director • Ryan Burch • Michael Cella • Kirsten Corrao • Margaret Kearney Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
Editorial	Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Josh Altic, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Ryan Byrne • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Irish potato • Samantha Mail • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Corinne Wolyniec • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora

palmerints1937.blogspot.com

Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Filibuster_and_reconciliation_in_the_United_States_Congress

Share this post