Filibustering in the U.S. Senate By Lauren C. Bell

of Congress thus connoted adventurism in an effort to thwart a government, in which the perpetrator would be accused of ‘filibustering against the United States.’ ” The word, derived from the Dutch vrijbuiter and the anglicized “freebooter,” was not used in a legislative context until the mid-1850s, several decades after the practice of delaying or defeating a measure through extended debate developed.

As used to describe a contemporary legislative procedure, filibuster has been described by the Congressional Research Service as “any use of dilatory or obstructive tactics to block a measure [in the United States Senate] by preventing it from coming to a vote” (Beth and Bach 2003). In their 2006 effort to better understand the filibuster, Wawro and Schickler narrowed this definition to include the use of certain, specific dilatory motions. Here, as in my previous work, I have been more inclusive in my definition than Wawro and Schickler were, using the term to refer to any action or set of actions taken by a senator or group of senators to intentionally delay or prevent any measure, nomination, or procedural activity from taking place. This definition is more expansive, yet more precise, because senators do not only filibuster measures, they also filibuster people (such as nominees to federal positions) and other parliamentary procedures, such as motions to proceed to consider bills and resolutions. It is also important to emphasize the filibusterer's intent, as the chamber's normally slow, deliberate pace leads naturally to what might appear to be dilatory tactics but in fact are legitimate—although time-consuming—actions taken to perfect a measure prior to final passage. When senators engage in filibustering, the dilatory activities are calculated to delay or prevent forward motion on the item or measure (most often by making it less palatable) on the floor. However, lengthy and complicated measures might legitimately require dozens of amendments to make them palatable to senatorial critics. The act of amending, or of consuming significant amounts of legislative time, would not in that instance rise to the level of a filibuster because the intent of the process would be to improve the measure under consideration with the ultimate goal of passing it. Similarly, a senator's threat to delay progress on legislation, if it never manifests itself in any actual dilatory behavior,