Sandboxing a comment.
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.
I'm wondering if there is an actual source for this. It may be common sense; it may be obvious from Senate Rule 22. But the issue has been raised, after a fashion, by Senate Majority Leader Reid's office and reported on by Ryan Grim in the Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html.
The article says less than I've seen people make of it. At first glance, including the headline, it suggests that the Majority Leader cannot actually force a "traditional" filibuster. But all the Reid memo states, apparently, is that the Majority Leader cannot force a "talking" filibuster, although that is the dramatic "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (or perhaps "Mr. Thurmond Stays in Washington") version. It does not appear to dispute that the Majority Leader can simply force a "traditional" filibuster by, for example, refusing to refer any new business to the floor until cloture is invoked.
In any event, I'd appreciate more discussion, or a reference, to the idea that the Majority Leader can require a traditional filibuster at his/her discretion.
Any help with this? Thanks. JBJD (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)