> It works something like this: Senate rules say that debate over an issue continues until everyone is done talking about it. To talk endlessly about the issue is a filibuster -- it doesn't necessarily have to be just one person yammering or anything. So all the Democrats have to do is to never say they're done talking about the issue and the Republicans never get a chance to vote on it.
>
> FP asks why the Republicans don't just wait until after the filibuster is over to have their vote. The answer is because it will never be over. Essentially the Dems will just vow to never be finished with debate on a topic, so eventually the final vote gets tabled because the other side gets sick of not being able to do any other business.
>
> Senate rules do allow for debate to be cut off and a final vote taken, but you need 60 votes to pass a motion to end debate. The Republicans only have 51 seats in the Senate, and as such can't ever press for a final vote. Unless the Democrats want to vote on the issue, it won't happen.
>
> As for this thing the Republicans did, that 30-hour session, it was basically just to piss off the Democrats. Nobody wants to be at work for 30 hours, and it was also a way to draw attention to what the Republicans consider to be a big problem (it wasn't a problem when they were a minority, mind). In other words, politics as usual. The whole filibuster thing is just one fun, weird quirk about the U.S. Senate that has a long and distinguished tradition of subverting democracy, which in my mind makes it a keeper.
>
> Stephen

Well I, for one, am certainly glad that is all cleared up.

When I was in the 9th grade, we tried to filibuster in our civics class, but it didn't work. Maybe we didn't understand the principle of the thing.
Howard