The Filibuster

25 thoughts on “The Filibuster”

1. I believe filibuster may be the necessary evil. It is not inherently a bad idea. The tradition is part of what can be used for good: to maintain the order of deliberation, to have the “control of the floor”, to set standards of voting using terminologies such as “seconds”, “majorities”, and “supermajorities”, etc. I had been to Union meetings where I felt mortified just by being there because a civilized parliamentary procedures was not present. The room was filled with chaos without a set agenda or someone making a motion, while many people tried to speak at the same time.

   This question also draws me back to when I had shared the importance of sound procedures, supported by James Madison, through the example of filibuster. I discussed how the Supreme Court Justice pick would most likely face a filibuster in our new Administration. Now we know Neil Gorsuch is the pick to fill the void; and, of course, the nomination has received Democratic opposition. Senate Democratic leaders instantly painted Gorsuch as an extremist and asserted that he must receive the 60 votes to break a filibuster. I expect it to be another long and rough discussion between the Senate Democratic minorities and the Republican majorities. The confirmation hearing will begin on March 20 in case anyone will be watching. If Gorsuch is to get a filibuster, it may just be a waste of time for the Democratic Senate to voice their concerns. But ultimately, it would be filibuster which gives many liberals the floor.

2. I think the filibuster exists for very good reasons. It’s one of the distinctive qualities that differentiates the Senate from the House of Representatives. Where the House was built to move quickly by majority votes, the Senate was systematically designed to enhance the deliberative process slowing down proceedings. The filibuster protects the minority party in the Senate from being silenced and ensures that their voices are heard in a debate. Because it requires 60 votes and one party holding 60 seats is just unimaginable, the filibuster is intended to force each party to work with each other to achieve consensus. Without the filibuster, the majority party can quickly decide to end a debate, move to a vote, and implement whatever they want. So the existence of a filibuster is even more critical when you have a party dominating the Senate, the House and the executive branch – as we do now.

   The filibuster has been around for centuries and it is unfortunate that we have seen it abused by the Senate. It has been used as a tactic to solely delay and obstruct leading to a gridlock. It has become a game of endurance (who can talk, stand, read, etc. the longest) with no intent to persuade or generate deliberation. Indeed, the current filibuster in practice is dysfunctional and desperately necessitates a reform to reclaim its positive contributions to deliberation. The current practice allows senators to put a complete halt on a debate (unless a cloture is invoked) and derail the issue with something frivolous in nature (like Ted Cruz reading a book), restraining opportunities for deliberation. As a result, the number of filibusters have increased in the past years.

   Filibusters should be amended to apply only on matters of priority issues and to enforce deliberation to focus only on one issue being debated, prohibiting sidetracking of the issue, until it reaches a decision – to gather 60 votes for cloture, withdraw the issue, reconvene at another time for further discussion, or amend the legislation, consequently placing an end to the filibuster. Any senator who calls for a filibuster must produce a strong justification to warrant one rather than merely calling for one. I think these simple reforms would help curtail the number of filibusters and generate more deliberations. Also, we must recognize that the system is only as good as those who enforce it hence, it is crucial to examine if the current elected public officials are serving the public’s best interests or their own special interests before the next election.

3. I have mixed-feelings about the Senate filibuster, but ultimately it would be in the public’s best interest if it was dismantled. The main reason is that the parliamentary trick is fundamentally undemocratic and has become a hyper-partisan tool. Because of Senate representation rules, the filibuster can be yielded by small states with minuscule populations to override overwhelming majority report. Under current rules, 41 Senators representing less than 11% of the population can prevent any bill they choose from even coming to a vote. The Senate, then, becomes a place that can easily avoid debating policy on merit.

   Secondly, it shifts the focus of politicians from reflecting and activating their constituencies and electoral mandates to utilizing unpopular parliamentary tricks. In other words, it is far more democratic and representative to force politicians to comprehensively make their cases to the public and build public support to pass or vote down a bill, rather than relying on the filibuster.

   Lastly, the filibuster has become a partisan tool for politicians to hide behind and continue gridlock. Because of the ease with which the filibuster can be used, politicians don’t have to take responsibility for their votes and the public is given less power to judge politicians (electorally). Rather than electing candidates with mandates, allowing them to enact publicly-supported policy, and then letting them face the judgement of the ballot box, politicians can survive for years on dysfunction.

   In my opinion, movement-building is a far better and more effective approach to opposition than allowing Senators to avoid even voting on a bill. Abolishing the filibuster would force our politicians to engage in and build broad support for their votes.

4. The existence of filibusters makes sense from a purely theoretical standpoint. Politicians will always want a back door policy on any legislation that they strongly feel opposes the views of their constituents. However, as stated, there have been many cases where filibusters have been abused. I personally have issue with what the article “Filibusters and Cloture in the US Senate” describes as the “germaneness of debate”. The American tax dollar is wasted when we have elected officials speaking about “Green Eggs and Ham” or oyster recipes. That is ridiculous. There should be more accountability and repercussions for elected officials who use the floor in such ways.

   Some potential repercussions could be financial penalties or probationary periods where the most egregious abusers have time on the floor reduced for future deliberations. Additionally, there should be stricter requirements on the use and content of filibusters. One potential requirement for a filibuster of a serious length of time could be that elected officials must provide signed petitions from their constituents with a certain amount of signatures to carry out said filibuster. This would help ensure that all filibusters are supported by the people and not political power plays among the elected officials themselves.

5. The filibuster is an important tool to force compromise and to magnify the opinion of a political minority. In recent years, though, the filibuster has been used at times to grind government to a halt. It’s also been used to defeat what I see as smart legislation like the DREAM Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the American Jobs Act, all of which were progressive policies that would have expanded legal rights for millions of people and help more people find work.

   Still, though, I think that having a procedural rule that forces 60 senators to agree or reach a compromise is crucial to ensure that majorities cannot enact their complete agendas at will and unchecked. I do think there should be reform to limit the use of the filibuster and ensure it’s only used in extreme circumstances — perhaps by limiting the number of times in a year the filibuster can be invoked. I also think the system should better incentivize compromise versus outright reject or deadlock. But even though the filibuster can derail good legislation, it’s an important tool to ensure that bad legislation can be thwarted as well.

6. Defer, delay or defeated are all appropriate adjectives when describing the possible impact of a filibuster. Ted Cruz, a Senator from Texas amongst others historically, wasted time and was on being paid when he read Dr. Seuss Green Eggs and Ham in 2013 in the Senate. The right to speak is a valuable privilege and so is the position of elected official. These rights are abused sometimes. The problem may exist Beth and Heitshusen say, “because of a lack of rules to restrict the time limits. “The Cloture rule is an answer to stop a filibuster but not the best answer but one of the few that exists.

   I am not promoting revoking rights because that’s what has made this country an honorable place to live. I’m advocating that in opposition to someone delaying the legislative process that adheres to certain ground rules such as being logical, professional and relevant to the topic of discussion. I oppose the filibuster for two reasons it wastes time and money. Instead of choosing to use this outdated tactic of rambling and as Mr. T used to call it “jibber jabber” to block votes, an alternate should reflect academic intelligence and scholastic honor. Filibusters are inconvenient and appear to interfere with important procedures that inevitably will be addressed anyway. It may be time to review the efficiency of the legislative process today at the very least it would present a massive undertaking but it’s worth the challenge to make the most efficient use of time and financial investments.

7. The filibuster is necessary for the minority party to express their views for the record. Although the use of it has become somewhat childish (i.e. reading the phone book, reading green eggs and ham) it is still necessary. Take for example Wendy Davis’ filibuster in the Texas State Senate. She stood for 11 hours to block a bill that would add strict abortion regulations. Although the bill was ultimately passed, her public disapproval of the bill gathered support from all over the country. It is important that the minority party is allowed the right to speak up so publicly.

   We live in an age where we have more access to our elected officials. We can email, call, write, and tweet at the people who represent us. Sometimes, a simple no vote on legislation that we oppose is not enough. To see our Senators sitting on the floor in protest or speaking throughout the night helps us to hold them accountable to their position.

8. Though the act of filibustering seems silly and when taken at first sight seems almost beneath congress I believe that filibusters are very important and serve the interest of the public when used for good. Obviously like many of the freedoms we as Americans hold near and dear filibustering like any form of free speech can be used for good and evil. However, in my opinion when used for good a filibuster signifies to congress a last resort from ‘the people’ to present opposition of a policy. I would describe filibustering as a hale marry pass. The dedication that it takes to hold the floor for such long periods of time and under heavy scrutiny is one that should not be taken lightly.

   I believe that a filibuster is most successful when there is a clear goal in mind. Senator Chris Murphy’s 2016 filibuster over gun control provides a clear example of success when the filibuster has a realistic goal in mind. Murphy held the floor for 15 hours and at the end of the process got the confirmation that gun measures would be voted on the following Monday. He did not approach his filibuster lightly or with petty bias.

   Most importantly filibusters in my opinion make congress re-consider. They symbolize the people who will be effected by the policies or decisions being discussed. With that in mind I cannot think of any changes to the process. I believe for good or bad this process ( as silly as it maybe) maintains respect for the forum. However, I might argue that people should not be allowed to waste congress time by reading things like ‘green eggs and ham’.

9. Filibuster and Cloture in the Senate

   A filibuster can be both, a good thing and a bad thing, depending on the debatable question. The reason for a filibuster maybe due to a change in the amendment or passing of a legislation bill The purpose of a filibuster is to allow a senator to speak for long time in order to get senators to change their mind on a debated question they support; this may take some convincing and so a filibuster may go on for hours.
   A filibuster can be a good thing when senators take advantage of this lengthy debate when they are trying to get a bill through the Legislature. Take Connecticut Senator Murphy, a democrat who said he “had enough” after the Sandy Hook shooting. Senator Murphy filibustered on gun control for 15 hours trying to get Republicans to take up the issue on guns. As the senator stated “There is not something fundamentally different about the American DNA that causes us to have a level of gun violence that is 20 times that of other first-world nations…It happens here because we choose to allow it to happen. We have a celebratory culture of guns, and the loosest firearms laws in the world,” (Rolling Stone). After the shooting in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub that results in 49 killed – the deadliest shooting in U.S. history by a single person – Senator Murphy and other senators wanted to “push through a set of legislation to expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales, and prevent anyone on the U.S. terror watch list from purchasing guns,” (KQED News).
   The Sandy Hook Shooting was a wake-up call for everyone that leaves twenty children and six adults dead. Despite all the killing that has taken place over the years the laws on gun control are not strict enough. And due to these “loose laws” throughout the United States gun sales have increase and so is the “mass shooting”. There has been four more shooting between 2013 and 2015 that causes the death of nine or more people including the shooting at the black church in Charleston, SC where there were nine victims and at the social service center in San Bernadino, California, where it was reported fourteen victims; then there was the Orlando shooting as previously mentioned. Although Senator Murphy failed to pass legislation it did draw the attention of the public and other senators.
   A filibuster can a bad thing when immigrants who came to the United States as children would acquire their citizenship by way of attending college or serve time in the military, this was known as the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was blocked twice due to filibuster in 2009 and 2010.

   Reference:

   http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-senator-who-filibustered-for-15-hours-on-gun-control-20160620

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/05/17-bills-that-likely-would-have-passed-the-senate-if-it-didnt-have-the-filibuster/?utm_term=.b40dbd39d7e1

10. Ultimately, the filibuster appears as a good thing. its fundamental to the character of the Senate. It protects the rights of the minority in American politics, assures stability and deliberation in government. This also preserves constitutional principles of check and balances and separation of powers. It forces the senate to comprise on ideological issues and as a consequent causes gridlock. Nonetheless, recent legislative battles over health care reform, the federal budget and other prominent issues have given rise to widespread demands for the abolition or to reform the rules surrounding the filibuster in the US Senate. Their argument has to do with the unlimited debate and amendment which have led to paralyzing requirements for supermajorities and tactics such as secret holds. Some rules also need to change such as allowing two or more Senators that need to support the filibuster before using the procedure. It will reduce gridlock and secret holds by preventing individual Senators from filibustering for selfish or political, or ideological reasons.

11. Call me cynical but I think the filibuster is abused for public relations purposes. Say Senator Mushmouth needs to impress his constituents or send a message to his colleagues. He can launch a filibuster to send the message that he opposes a proposed bit of legislation. The filibuster serves as his quixotic defense of his ideals, which he can use as political capital later when running for office. Thus, Ted Cruz can cite his filibuster against expanding health insurance to poor people when he reminds voters the of the time he had to heroically stand for over 21 hours and spew irrelevant gibberish, and he’ll hope he can spin his feat so the voters buy it.

    When Chris Murphy performed his filibuster for gun control last year, a materialist analysis might have seen it as equally quixotic as Ted Cruz’s. It allowed a politician to make it appear to his constituents that he was *doing* something, rather than actually challenging the political power and wealth of the gun lobby. His filibuster was instead a sort of ersatz politics.

12. The centuries old tactic of the filibuster can be viewed as a protection of political minorities against majorities, yet the process needs adjustments to maximize the effectiveness of the tool. With the increase of filibusters by almost double in only the past two decades, the American citizenry have been witness to misuse/abuse of them. With the approval of the Senate to conduct business while a filibuster is proceeding, the complex procedures can stall the Senate for extensive periods of time, averting the critical issues to be addressed.

    Senator Ted Cruz’s wasteful use of a filibuster, and government resources in general, is an example the need to revisit this tactic. While he is avidly reading “Green Eggs and Ham”, the deliberation for legislature that should be happening for our country’s future come to a standstill. In Chapter 5, “How Government Deliberates”, it is emphasized that “representatives have a specific constituency on whose behalf they speak, but those same constituents often expect them to think and act in terms of the larger public good-beyond even the boundaries of a representative’s political base”. This ideal, along with the key features of legislative deliberation (Analytical and social process) presented in the same reading can support filibusters for efficacy for constituents at large.

13. The option to filibuster is the ugly cost of the freedom given to senators to debate as needed largely without a time constraint. Imagine the harm that could be done if sufficient time were not made available for the presentation and discussion of sensitive items for consideration. Time should never be a limiting factor, so the filibuster is likely here to stay. Ideally, and as sometimes used, however, the filibuster is not “a good thing” because the amount of extra time taken does not guarantee the introduction of fresh, relevant and persuasive information. The process may only delay the inevitable. Although a win is still a win for the senator who wears down his opposition through this delaying tactic, citizens always deserve meaningful debate and careful formulation of the laws that govern them.

    The executive summary of Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate states three negative consequences of the filibuster right up front. Filibustering is a coercive tactic that may force an opponent to accept a law or amendment otherwise viewed as undesirable. Laws should be enacted because they serve the common good. In addition, the concern of a possible filibuster may influence whether a controversial item gets introduced on the senate floor at all. Finally, of greatest concern, a filibuster can delay the discussion of any time-sensitive items coming later. Yet each of these outcomes makes the filibuster a potent, strategic tool. Senators know this, which is why they carefully navigate speech-making time rules that contribute to this delaying tactic. Part of an effective government deliberation is controlling the process. The institution of a time limit trigger, such as reading irrelevant recipes, or Dr. Seuss, may impart more meaningful control.

14. A filibuster in simplest terms can be called a preventative tool. It was designed to protect the rights of minority in the Senate. In addition the Electoral College shares a similar concept in regard to defending the smaller states against larger states. Filibusters are necessary to the political decision making process. It serves as a device intended to promote comprehensive and deliberative discussion. With its lax rules for usage the filibuster stands to be misused and can potentially delay the process of important decisions.

    The filibuster is not bad but the low standards to use it misrepresent its intentions. As of recent years (18), filibusters have been used to prevent critical issues from being addressed while protecting the interest of the majority party. One major benefit is it allows a group to halt legislation even without the majority. This means that the majority party cannot necessarily pass anything they would like. Providing each Senator is acting in the best interest of the public they serve, the filibuster is considered effective. Since that is the contrary and both parties misuse the tool to stifle the other, the standards of use should be changed.

    Some examples are stringent rules for initiating a filibuster and a percentage of the “filibustering senators” should be responsible for votes in a cloture.

15. I see filibuster as a necessary tool. Governing should be about seeking consensus and compromise, and filibusters serve a purpose where a policy is being imposed by majority without due efforts to accommodate everyone affected.

    Clearly, the filibuster can be used for posturing, theatrics, and just cynical obstructionism, but that is the other side of the coin in checks and balances.

    As for changing the rules, I think the filibuster should be kept in place concerning nominations for Supreme Court Justices. The purpose would be to enforce some kind of bipartisanship in those decisions.

16. I think the filibuster has its pros and cons. From my understanding it was originally intended to be used sparingly. However, in recent years, specifically the Obama years, there’s been a sort of “normalizing” of the filibuster’s usage. Republicans have used the filibuster as a tactic to obstruct Obama’s judicial appointments. This can be seen in a comparison of the percentage of judicial nominees confirmed in the first 14 months of the past six presidencies. The usage of filibuster to promote and expand one party’s ideological agenda and to oppress the others is worrisome. Just the threat of filibuster means that a simple majority will not be sufficient to pass a bill. If forty percent of the senate threaten to filibuster, there is no need to speak on the floor. I think that when the filibuster is used in this way and it becomes commonplace for legislation to need 60 votes instead of a simple majority to move forward, it’s clearly being abused. Filibuster can also gridlock legislation.

    The good thing about the filibuster is its original intention to allow for thoughtful deliberation to take place about important legislation. It’s an opportunity for a senator to speak her mind and be heard. Speaking on a particular piece of legislation for an extended period of time can be a display of the thoughtfulness and significance one has put on the law. The filibuster is meant to give time to persuade other senators as to why their vote on an important matter should be reconsidered and to bring their own argument to attention. History has shown that not all opinions on which matters should be reconsidered are moral #StromThurmond. But sometimes they are #WendyDavis.

    I’m not sure what I would change.

17. The conception of our government is that it is an entity operates a centralized power that is set with specific limitations to power to limit its concentration. With that being said the filibuster is a tactic that limits the concentration of power. It allows minority groups time to be represented and be heard. In current political times, where the House and Senate are Republican, filibustering will allow for opportunities fore more liberal opinions to be heard.

    In the past, filibustering occurred were over topics like race relations within the United States, which is a social and morally huge debate to have. Currently, filibustering may be over issues that are more business related such as the Affordable Care Act and the concept of Universal Health Care which has its own underlying social and moral implications. Obama had many issues for years getting anything passed in the Senate due to the overwhelming majority against anything he proposed. Government is established to relinquish the power of super majorities and initiatives. Filibustering is one of the tools that can accomplish this.

18. Though filibustering can be considered the Senate’s toddler tantrum of debate, it has also lead to dialogue and compromise. Some may agree that a filibuster is to the Senate as the electoral college is to the Presidential election, in that minority groups deserve a chance at equal representation. Opponents believe the filibuster undermines ‘majority rules’ democracy, while advocates of this form of legislature obstruction believe it strengthens the presence of the minority.

    It many be fair to say that the issue is not with the roll of the filibuster, but with the decisions and voting patterns of the Senate. If politicians truly represented their constituents, and voted in the interest of the communities they represent than a filibusters roll would not be as necessary as it currently is. Historically, filibusters raised public awareness of important issues and maintained a form of checks and balances. Today, it serves as a means by which the minority feels equally represented and dismantles what they see as hazardous reform. However, it is fundamentally important that the power of the senate be utilized for the greater good of the people, often it is not and political affiliation and lobbyists overpower the vote.

19. The filibuster is a controversial tool in the parliamentary process. When used strategically, the filibuster offers the minority party the potential to table a bill or amendment that would have otherwise passed by majority. My views on the filibuster as a tool are not solidified. I am glad when it is used to ward off a piece of legislation I disagree with. I am angered by its existence when it is employed frivolously or against my political beliefs. This unstable opinion makes it difficult for me to recommend any procedural changes, but one suggestion would be to eliminate the two-track system. I believe the ability for the Senate to continue working on its agenda during a filibuster severely weakens the action. Moreover, it loses some teeth which empowers otherwise silent senators to employ this delaying tactic. An increased use of the filibuster is not productive for an efficient governing body like the Senate. It should only be used in times of dire need as with former Texas lawmaker Wendy Davis’ night long filibuster, as opposed to Senator Cruz’s performance of “Green Eggs & Ham.”

20. I do believe that the filibuster has a place in the senatorial deliberation process. The act of filibustering and therefore allowing others on the opposite side of the debate to present their thoughts and beliefs falls in line with what is often characterized as American democracy. Delaying decisions provides time for argument as well as contemplation on a topic.

    However, I think that the regulations and processes surrounding the act of filibustering should be re-examined to insure that there is an intrinsic argumentative value to be had from the delay. As it is, senators who choose to gobble up time by reading from a children’s book, phone book or delve into subjects far off-topic are just wasting time. They are literally adding no value to their argument at that point. This should be curtailed. I would be in favor of a curtailed time limit as well as an independent appointee mining for valueless babble.

21. The filibuster was initially intended as a way to ensure that minority opinions were heard before the Senate voted on an issue, and allow adequate deliberation on legislation. Although well intended, I do not believe they are effective but only serve as a delay tactic.

    The idea behind the filibuster was simple: As long as a senator kept talking on the floor, a bill could not move forward. Once someone has the Senate floor and have been recognized to speak, in order to keep the filibuster in motion, the person has to continue speaking, can’t sit down, can’t eat on the Senate floor, but can drink water or milk, can’t leave the Senate floor, even for a bathroom break, and can essentially talk about anything, even reading a book aloud. These things are some of the limitations that I believe should be changed so that the time deliberate is more purposeful and not just a stall tactic.

    Recently, Democrats tried using a filibuster to try and sink at least one nomination from President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, attacking education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos a day before her confirmation vote. However, the results were still the same and Betsy DeVos was confirmed as education secretary. I believe that filibusters should exist to promote further debate and deliberation of legislation, but there needs to be changes made so that there is value to the debate.

22. In the article by the congressional research service filibustering is define as parliamentary procedure that includes any use of dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote. It is a tactic where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal I think that is difficult to say that is a good or bad tactic I think that it all depends who is using it and what beliefs that minority has. This is all part of our democracy.
    If the issue been discuss by the senate that is put under filibuster is beneficial for the people then it is a good thing that we have it. Because it can prevent bad decision from happening that will have a negative impact in the country. For example when the Texas State House voted overwhelmingly to pass a horrendous proposal that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks. Democratic State Senator Wendy Davis, who launched an heroic 11-hour filibuster that amazingly shut the bill down. Davis had to speak until midnight, was not allowed water or food breaks, could not lean on anything to support herself, and could not go to the bathroom. At then Davis succeeded in derailing SB5 even after the efforts of the Republicans to shut her down.
    Overall it all depends the reason behind using filibuster. I think that is beneficial for minorities that want to fight for their beliefs. This is the why it is so important to for the people to vote for senators because at the end they are the ones that represent us and our beliefs.

23. Filibuster is a way to have a meaningful deliberation and allow voice to the minority but the use has been seen as tactic to halt further proceedings. I think there should be protection to ensure minorities are heard but only if there is guarantee that they are heard and create more discussion. Filibuster such as when a senator talks about something else instead of having any meaningful debate are just using the opportunity to stop a bill from being voted is not constructive and has no place in the system. This creates further mistrust in the system and the people in the senate. The power of filibuster is misused and taken as a way for minorities to control the proceedings. There should be changes in filibuster but it is important that deliberation is not taken for granted.

24. The filibuster is not a good thing for present day legislation and deliberation. Early in the Senate’s history the filibuster may have been a good thing because it allowed members to prevent bills that were good for only certain groups from being enacted into law because, as stated by Richard S. Beth and Valerie Heitshusen, “Senate rules deliberately lack provisions that would place specific limits on Senators’ rights and opportunities in the legislative process.” Because it’s been used and abused more frequently in modern day legislation, and as time has passed, rules like the cloture vote and two track system have been implemented to lessen the impact of filibustering on other Senate business, the filibuster should be prohibited unless the speaker is using his or her time to speak directly about relevant information pertaining to the bill.

25. The filibuster has been around for many many years and we have seen it used and sometimes over used by the Senate. The filibuster is a tool that is used to delay and obstruct bills that senators are looking forward to be passed. The current filibuster used in the house is dysfunctional and a possible reform may be necessary to proclaim its contributions to the deliberation process. The current practice allows senators to put a complete halt on a debate (unless a cloture is invoked) and derail the issue restraining opportunities for deliberation. As a result, the number of filibusters have increased in the past years.

    One that have had my attention was after a 15 hour filabuster lamenting congressional inaction on guns, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut had won the chance to vote, again, on measures to expand background checks and keep suspected terrorists from buying firearms. This filabuster peaked my interest being that I am against gun violence of any form.

Comments are closed.