Busting the Filibuster?

After 1900, is there any conceivable way of ridding the U.S. Senate of the filibuster? My thinking is that the best shot for such a move would be in the midst of the Civil Rights movement, but of course, I could be wrong (I'm not especially well versed in Senate history, I'm afraid). Any ideas?
 
After 1900, is there any conceivable way of ridding the U.S. Senate of the filibuster? My thinking is that the best shot for such a move would be in the midst of the Civil Rights movement, but of course, I could be wrong (I'm not especially well versed in Senate history, I'm afraid). Any ideas?

Well, the first erosion of the unlimited debate in the Senate came with America's entry into the First World War. A group of anti-war Senators led the longest filibuster in Senate history, and the Senate rules were re-written mid-session to create the Cloture Rule allowing 6/10ths of the Senate to agree to end debate and proceed with the vote.

A different political climate at the time might lead to the Senate completely rejecting its privileges of unlimited debate, and imposing more structured, House style rules.
 
After 1900, is there any conceivable way of ridding the U.S. Senate of the filibuster? My thinking is that the best shot for such a move would be in the midst of the Civil Rights movement, but of course, I could be wrong (I'm not especially well versed in Senate history, I'm afraid). Any ideas?

An easy way would be to have the Filibuster never really come to prominence. IIRC it was a relativly uncommon practice until it was siezed upon by southern senators as a way of blocking Civil Rights legislation, after which the number of filibusters mushroomed upwards. So a different civil rights movement, one in which the filibuster is never adopted, or when stronger cloture rules are imposed, could leave it as a relativly uncommon measure.
 
the republicans thought about it (the nuclear option) when the democrats blocked W's judicial appointments and the democrats are thinking about it now to get health care passed.

maybe it could happen in the 30's if the republicans were more obstructionist to FDR's legistlation
 
In 1955, then-Veep Nixon ruled that each Senate could adopt their own rules, but before the GOP could move, LBJ warned Ike that the Formosa Resolution would be killed, and he desisted. Have Nixon work his magic, or have the GOP retain Congress in the '54 midterms.
 
Actually just have the argument made on the left side that the filibuster should be abolished (in totality) win the day when the GOP talked about doing it for judicial nominations. If all of a sudden the Dem suddenly say "You're right, the nuclear option is good, so good, let's remove it entirely!"

Would the GOP agree?
 
Actually just have the argument made on the left side that the filibuster should be abolished (in totality) win the day when the GOP talked about doing it for judicial nominations. If all of a sudden the Dem suddenly say "You're right, the nuclear option is good, so good, let's remove it entirely!"

Would the GOP agree?

I'd be inclined to (jokingly) say, "No, if the Democrats endorsed puppies and sunshine the Republicans would come out against them!", but IRL probably yes.
 
Well, the first erosion of the unlimited debate in the Senate came with America's entry into the First World War. A group of anti-war Senators led the longest filibuster in Senate history, and the Senate rules were re-written mid-session to create the Cloture Rule allowing 6/10ths of the Senate to agree to end debate and proceed with the vote.

A different political climate at the time might lead to the Senate completely rejecting its privileges of unlimited debate, and imposing more structured, House style rules.

Yes, I'd forgotten about the importance of WWI in this whole process. Like eveybody else I associate the fillibuster with the preservation of Jim Crow.

MNPundit said:
Actually just have the argument made on the left side that the filibuster should be abolished (in totality) win the day when the GOP talked about doing it for judicial nominations.

Let's have the GOP senate conference adopt an anti-filibuster policy during one of the eras when they were riding high.

F'rinstance, if Democrats & insurgents successfully filibuster the treaty that came out of the Washington Naval conference (why? How? Let's handwave a strange alliance between ultra-isolationists, militaristic Dixiecrats and senators from shipbuilding states) then the GOP leadership might ask VP Coolidge to rule that Rule 22 be rewritten, or even abolished.

Otherwise there's my idea of the progressives sucessfully filibustering Taft-Hartley in '47, leading to payback when the GOP reclaims the majority and the senate president's chair in '52.

What is the overall effect?

I can't help but think that some of the US upper house's greatest debates that led to the rejection of controversial policy occurred without the invocation of the filibuster. Think the League of Nations, or the court packing controversy.

You don't need a filibuster to thwart executive overreach--but there are sections who define 'overreach' differently to you and me. The Southrons, obviously.
 
I shouldn't say for sure but I hope enough politicians would realize that it could be a useful idea at times.
 
Well, the first erosion of the unlimited debate in the Senate came with America's entry into the First World War. A group of anti-war Senators led the longest filibuster in Senate history, and the Senate rules were re-written mid-session to create the Cloture Rule allowing 6/10ths of the Senate to agree to end debate and proceed with the vote.

A different political climate at the time might lead to the Senate completely rejecting its privileges of unlimited debate, and imposing more structured, House style rules.
In 1917 the rule became 2/3rds of the Senate could vote for Cloture, this stayed till 1975 when it was reduced to the present 6/10ths.
 
Top