Our friend Rachel Bovard has posted to The Federalist a great rebuttal to the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel and her (wrong we think) criticism of conservative demands that Democrats actually perform when they threaten to filibuster a bill implementing conservative policies.
Rachel Bovard is now the vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute. Prior to joining CPI she served on Capitol Hill for over a decade, including as legislative director to Sen. Rand Paul and as executive director of the Senate Steering Committee. In her essay she knocks down a number of the misconceptions and Ms. Strassel’s piece.
Wrote Ms. Bovard:
Kimberley Strassel recently opined in The Wall Street Journal about the “hot air” of the talking filibuster strategy currently being considered by Senate Republicans as a way of passing the SAVE America Act, a bill that would mandate voter ID in federal elections, require proof of citizenship for registering to vote, and make states purge noncitizens from their voter rolls.
The Senate rules provide two ways to break a filibuster. The first is the mechanical way, by invoking cloture (the Senate’s term for ending debate), which requires 60 votes. The second, which has existed within the Senate’s rules since its inception, is by making senators talk — the “talking filibuster.”
The talking filibuster is a strategy that, first and foremost, imposes a physical and psychological cost of obstruction on filibustering senators. Second, it forces a public political process that has implications for those who oppose the bill. In other words, it doesn’t allow them to hide behind a single vote. If Democrats want to oppose securing the vote from the interference of noncitizens, they should have to explain why — at length and in public.
Strassel has provided several reasons for opposing this strategy, challenges she calls “false promises and huge problems.” But her essay leaves out critical details, makes some key factual errors, and is based on unwarranted assumptions. I’ll respond to each of her objections one by one.
“Democrats get two speeches apiece — each of unlimited length — simply to oppose moving on to the bill.”
This is not true. The SAVE America Act is coming over from the House in a procedural means known as a message. The vote to move on to a bill, when it is packaged this way, is privileged, meaning the vote is at a simple majority vote, and no debate is allowed. So, it is incorrect to say that Democrats get two speeches “simply to oppose moving on to the bill.”
Assuming Senate Republicans vote to get on the bill, then Democrats do get two speeches apiece on the bill itself, under the Senate’s two-speech rule. Strassel suggests “there is no way to end this torture,” but there actually is: physical exhaustion. If the Senate is in session 24 hours a day, a Democrat must be on the floor and speaking at all times. It takes intense physical stamina to do this. To hold the floor, a filibustering senator must stand and speak continuously. He cannot sit, he cannot leave the floor (not even to use the bathroom), and he cannot eat.
Are there Democrat senators who can do this? Yes, of course. Can all of them do it for eight hours — and twice — as Strassel suggests? The answer is no. It strains credulity to believe that Sen. Bernie Sanders, at the age of 84, has the same physical vigor as Sen. Cory Booker, 28 years his junior.
This strategy will take time; there is no avoiding that. But senators are not cyborgs; they’re humans. They get tired and bored, and they have other demands on their time. Strassel asserts that there is no end, but in fact there is: Time and stamina, both the physical and psychological kind, will decide when.
“Democrats can easily take turns eating, sleeping and flying home during this marathon. Only one of them needs to be on the floor giving a speech. The GOP, by contrast, will need to maintain almost all its members on the floor at all times. At any moment, Schumer might demand a quorum call — which demands 51 senators.”
Again, not true. Fifty-one Republicans would not have to sit on the floor, and requiring them all to sit on the floor for hours at a time would merely be filibuster theater.
Republicans simply need to respond to live quorum calls. The only person with the power to put in a live quorum call — when senators must come to the floor and register their presence by vote — is GOP Majority Leader John Thune. Democrats can suggest the absence of a quorum, but that does not compel senators to do anything. Only the majority leader has the power to decide when a live quorum call will take place. And when he does, the likelihood is that both Republicans and Democrats will respond and come to the floor. If the Democrats refuse to come to the floor, the sergeant at arms will bring them to the floor, per the Senate’s Rule 6.
“Schumer could also move to adjourn, which would restart the legislative day — providing Democrats a whole new round of 94 speeches.”
Any senator can move to adjourn, but simply moving to adjourn does nothing. The motion has to pass. Motions to adjourn are considered at a simple majority and without debate. Assuming a majority of Republicans vote against a Democrat motion to adjourn, it will fail, the legislative day will remain the same, and there will be no new speeches allowed.
“Indeed, any new question or point sparks another round of speeches.”
This is also not true. Any new question (an amendment, for example) proposed by the Democrats could be tabled by the Republicans with no debate at all. A tabling motion is a motion that kills the underlying question. It is considered at a simple majority and without debate. If Republicans hang together and table each new question offered by Democrats, there will be no new speeches opened.
“What is the left’s top priority in 2026? Blocking entirely the GOP agenda. A talking filibuster provides Democrats a pain-free, headline-friendly way of taking the Senate (and by extension the entire GOP Congress) offline for a very long period.”
Democrats would not be blocking the entire Republican agenda. They would be blocking legislation designed to stop illegal aliens from voting in federal elections, an issue that is overwhelmingly popular with the public. Making Democrats do this publicly is the entire point of the exercise.
To read Rachel Bovard’s “What The Wall Street Journal Gets Wrong About The Talking Filibuster” in its entirety click the link.
Rachel Bovard is now the vice president of programs at the Conservative Partnership Institute. Prior to joining CPI she served on Capitol Hill for over a decade, including as legislative director to Sen. Rand Paul and as executive director of the Senate Steering Committee. In her essay she knocks down a number of the misconceptions and Ms. Strassel’s piece.
Wrote Ms. Bovard:
Kimberley Strassel recently opined in The Wall Street Journal about the “hot air” of the talking filibuster strategy currently being considered by Senate Republicans as a way of passing the SAVE America Act, a bill that would mandate voter ID in federal elections, require proof of citizenship for registering to vote, and make states purge noncitizens from their voter rolls.
The Senate rules provide two ways to break a filibuster. The first is the mechanical way, by invoking cloture (the Senate’s term for ending debate), which requires 60 votes. The second, which has existed within the Senate’s rules since its inception, is by making senators talk — the “talking filibuster.”
The talking filibuster is a strategy that, first and foremost, imposes a physical and psychological cost of obstruction on filibustering senators. Second, it forces a public political process that has implications for those who oppose the bill. In other words, it doesn’t allow them to hide behind a single vote. If Democrats want to oppose securing the vote from the interference of noncitizens, they should have to explain why — at length and in public.
Strassel has provided several reasons for opposing this strategy, challenges she calls “false promises and huge problems.” But her essay leaves out critical details, makes some key factual errors, and is based on unwarranted assumptions. I’ll respond to each of her objections one by one.
“Democrats get two speeches apiece — each of unlimited length — simply to oppose moving on to the bill.”
This is not true. The SAVE America Act is coming over from the House in a procedural means known as a message. The vote to move on to a bill, when it is packaged this way, is privileged, meaning the vote is at a simple majority vote, and no debate is allowed. So, it is incorrect to say that Democrats get two speeches “simply to oppose moving on to the bill.”
Assuming Senate Republicans vote to get on the bill, then Democrats do get two speeches apiece on the bill itself, under the Senate’s two-speech rule. Strassel suggests “there is no way to end this torture,” but there actually is: physical exhaustion. If the Senate is in session 24 hours a day, a Democrat must be on the floor and speaking at all times. It takes intense physical stamina to do this. To hold the floor, a filibustering senator must stand and speak continuously. He cannot sit, he cannot leave the floor (not even to use the bathroom), and he cannot eat.
Are there Democrat senators who can do this? Yes, of course. Can all of them do it for eight hours — and twice — as Strassel suggests? The answer is no. It strains credulity to believe that Sen. Bernie Sanders, at the age of 84, has the same physical vigor as Sen. Cory Booker, 28 years his junior.
This strategy will take time; there is no avoiding that. But senators are not cyborgs; they’re humans. They get tired and bored, and they have other demands on their time. Strassel asserts that there is no end, but in fact there is: Time and stamina, both the physical and psychological kind, will decide when.
“Democrats can easily take turns eating, sleeping and flying home during this marathon. Only one of them needs to be on the floor giving a speech. The GOP, by contrast, will need to maintain almost all its members on the floor at all times. At any moment, Schumer might demand a quorum call — which demands 51 senators.”
Again, not true. Fifty-one Republicans would not have to sit on the floor, and requiring them all to sit on the floor for hours at a time would merely be filibuster theater.
Republicans simply need to respond to live quorum calls. The only person with the power to put in a live quorum call — when senators must come to the floor and register their presence by vote — is GOP Majority Leader John Thune. Democrats can suggest the absence of a quorum, but that does not compel senators to do anything. Only the majority leader has the power to decide when a live quorum call will take place. And when he does, the likelihood is that both Republicans and Democrats will respond and come to the floor. If the Democrats refuse to come to the floor, the sergeant at arms will bring them to the floor, per the Senate’s Rule 6.
“Schumer could also move to adjourn, which would restart the legislative day — providing Democrats a whole new round of 94 speeches.”
Any senator can move to adjourn, but simply moving to adjourn does nothing. The motion has to pass. Motions to adjourn are considered at a simple majority and without debate. Assuming a majority of Republicans vote against a Democrat motion to adjourn, it will fail, the legislative day will remain the same, and there will be no new speeches allowed.
“Indeed, any new question or point sparks another round of speeches.”
This is also not true. Any new question (an amendment, for example) proposed by the Democrats could be tabled by the Republicans with no debate at all. A tabling motion is a motion that kills the underlying question. It is considered at a simple majority and without debate. If Republicans hang together and table each new question offered by Democrats, there will be no new speeches opened.
“What is the left’s top priority in 2026? Blocking entirely the GOP agenda. A talking filibuster provides Democrats a pain-free, headline-friendly way of taking the Senate (and by extension the entire GOP Congress) offline for a very long period.”
Democrats would not be blocking the entire Republican agenda. They would be blocking legislation designed to stop illegal aliens from voting in federal elections, an issue that is overwhelmingly popular with the public. Making Democrats do this publicly is the entire point of the exercise.
To read Rachel Bovard’s “What The Wall Street Journal Gets Wrong About The Talking Filibuster” in its entirety click the link.
