Personal tools

Argument: Filibuster wrongly burdens majority party

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Randy Barnett, one of the burgeoning field of Volokh conspirators, argued against the filibuster on the following grounds: "The contemporary filibuster is a polite affair. Charles Schumer does not talk through the night, bleary eyed and exhausted. Why not? Couldn’t the filibuster be broken if the Republicans forced the Democrats to go 24/7? No. Because the 24/7 option actually gives an advantage to the minority. Why? In order to force a 24/7 filibuster, the majority must maintain a quorum at all times, but the minority need only have one Senator present to maintain the filibuster. So 24/7 both exhausts and distracts the majority, while allowing the minority the opportunity to rest and carry on their ordinary business. [Emphasis added.] No modern filibuster has been broken by the 24/7 option. For more on this, see my post entitled Update on Filibusters."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits