What does the term “filibuster� mean, and how is it used by individual Senators and for what purposes? What does “cloture� mean, and how is it used by the leadership of the Senate and for what purposes? What is your opinion of these procedures--are they good for conducting the business of the United States Senate, or not? Why or why not?
A filibuster is a tactic like a long, long speech that is intended to delay or stop a piece of legislation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/filibuster
Cloture is a tactic to end the delay and call for a vote on the question.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm
The term "filibuster" refers to a tactic used by individual Senators in the United States Senate to prolong debate on a bill, resolution, or nomination and prevent a final vote from taking place. By continuously speaking on the Senate floor or raising objections, Senators can prevent the passage of legislation or delay the confirmation of nominees.
The purpose of a filibuster can vary depending on the Senator's objectives. Sometimes, Senators use this tactic to draw attention to an issue, bring about public discourse, or influence the outcome of the legislation by persuading their colleagues to change their stance. Other times, it may be used as a procedural maneuver to stall or obstruct the agenda of the opposing party.
In order to overcome a filibuster and proceed to a final vote, a procedure called "cloture" is used. Cloture is a mechanism that requires a supermajority vote of 60 Senators (out of 100) to end the legislative debate and bring the bill to a vote. Once cloture is invoked, a limited amount of additional debate time is granted, after which a final vote can take place.
The purpose of cloture is to provide a way to bring the legislative process to a conclusion when a filibuster is impeding progress. It allows the Senate to move forward with its agenda by imposing a requirement for broad support from Senators.
Opinions on filibuster and cloture procedures are diverse, and there is no one-size-fits-all perspective. Some argue that these procedures are crucial to protect minority rights, encourage compromise, and ensure careful consideration of legislation. They believe that removing or substantially modifying these mechanisms could lead to rushed and potentially harmful decisions.
On the other hand, critics argue that the filibuster can be misused to obstruct progress, create gridlock, and prevent the Senate from effectively addressing key issues. They argue that it can impede the democratic process by allowing a minority of Senators to wield disproportionate influence.
Ultimately, whether these procedures are seen as beneficial or detrimental depends on one's perspective and the specific context in which they are used. The ongoing debate surrounding filibuster reform reflects the differing opinions regarding their impact on the functioning of the United States Senate.