Gimmee that old time Filibuster, it's good enough for me!

When will the Senate revert to the "old rules" and actually require Senators stand in the well and speak to filibuster?

The current rules virtually assume that the filibuster has already occurred. In other words, a super-majority of 60 or more is required to pass anything in the Senate.

Endlessly extended (and often pointless) debate, or filibuster, is not found in the Constitution but rather in the Senate Rules. The Constitution sets out a number of situations where a super-majority (two-thirds) is required to approve certain items. It is arguable that the remaining items are to require only a simple majority for approval, and that the current filibuster rules violate the Constitution because they effectively require a super-majority (60%).

But the Constitution also states that the houses of Congress are to establish their own rules of operation. Also, simply because a list of items requiring a 2/3rd majority appears in the Constitution does not necessarily mean that Congress is prohibited from requiring super-majorities in other matters.

Finally, were the matter brought to the judicial branch it would likely be dismissed as a non-justiciable matter.

So, it's up to the Senate to fix this mess. Having 41 members with a common party affiliation in the Senate is not the same thing as an issue being important enough for a senator to stand in the well and make himself or herself hoarse from reading a telephone book for hours on end.

If an issue is so darned important, then at least one senator ought to be willing to devote the time required for unending debate, in person.

D