1) A filibuster is a legislative talkathon used to block legislative action on a bill. Filibusters have a long history in the U.S. Senate and provide a way for senators who are in the minority on a given issue to block a policy change by preventing a floor vote. The term filibuster comes from the Dutch word pirate, and became popular in the United States in the 1850s. Filibusters were used very sparingly in the nineteenth century. When they were first created, there was no way to formally stop a filibuster. In 1917, senators adopted Rule 22 at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson; the new rule allowed the Senate to end a debate through a petition known as cloture. If two-thirds of senators agreed, the debate would terminate. Even with this new rule, filibusters remained a highly effective way to block legislation, as getting a two-thirds majority vote is very difficult. Senators reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67 votes once Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959) to three-fifths (60) in 1975. The longest Senate filibuster in history was 24 hours and 18 minutes, by Strom Thurmond in 1957 (U.S. Senate, Filibuster and Cloture, available at

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm (Links to an external site.)

In speaking against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Thurmond declared that:Every State has enacted some legislation making it unlawful to intimidate a voter or to hinder him in the exercising of his voting rights. Penalties have been provided for such violations. I now expect to take up the voting laws in each of the 48 States and show that each of the States affords adequate protection of the voting right (Congressional Record, Proceedings of the Debates of the 85th Congress, First Session, Volume 103, Part12, August 22, 1957August 30, 1957, p. 16263).
He literally proceeded to read from the statutory codes of the 48 states in question. Thurmond later read from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and George Washingtons Farewell Address. A very lengthy discussion of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 ensued. In spite of Thurmonds opposition, the House measure easily passed in the Senate and was signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In late 2013, Senate Democrats changed the filibuster rules by a 5248 vote for nominations to executive branch positions as well as nonSupreme Court judicial nominations. In the case of such appointments, only 51 votes (not 60) are needed to end a debate and advance a final vote on confirmation (see Washington Post, Reid, Democrats Trigger Nuclear Option; Eliminate Most Filibusters on Nominees, available at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html (Links to an external site.)

The use of filibusters in the Senate has increased significantly in recent years. The number of cloture motions never exceeded 10 in a given session of Congress from World War I to 1970. Between 1971 and 2006, cloture motions never exceeded 100. Since 2007, the number of cloture motions is as follows:

110 Session of Congress (200708) 139
111 Session of Congress (200910) 137
112 Session of Congress (201112) 115
113 Session of Congress (201314) 194

(see U.S. Senate, Senate Action on Cloture Motions, available at

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm (Links to an external site.)

In 2019-2020, 328 cloture motions were filed. At least in a measurable sense in the context of 100 years of history, the use of filibusters and cloture has increased dramatically. Is this trend good or bad? Why or why not? When do you think a filibuster is fair to use? When is it not? Should the filibuster be eliminated?

2) I want you to listen to 30 minutes of oral arguments from the current Supreme Court term. They are available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2020.

Write one double-spaced page that tells me the case you listened to, what it was about, and how you feel about what you heard. What made sense? What didn’t? Did the oral arguments align with your expectations? Why or why not?