Senator Cory Booker delivered a notable 25-hour and 5-minute speech from Monday night into Tuesday, aimed at criticizing the policies of President Trump’s administration. By collaborating with other Democratic senators, Booker set a new record for the longest speech on the Senate floor, capturing the attention of hundreds of thousands of viewers and causing a surge in web searches for the term “filibuster.” However, the speech did not technically qualify as a filibuster, which typically involves obstructing legislation or nominations.
The U.S. Senate describes a filibuster as actions intended to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on legislative matters. Casey Burgat, Program Director at George Washington University’s Legislative Affairs Program, noted that such speeches could raise awareness or provide time for negotiations in the Senate.
Historically, the Senate has allowed unlimited debate, leading to many prominent filibusters over the years. Booker’s record-breaking speech brought attention back to the practice of filibustering, though it was not used to block a specific bill or nomination. Notable historical instances include Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour speech opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was the previous record for the longest Senate speech.
The concept of a filibuster has an intriguing history, evolving from its origins as a term for unauthorized military expeditions in Latin America in the 19th century to its current political usage. By the 1850s, it had become established as a metaphor for prolonged debates in Congress, likening filibustering legislators to disruptors or pirates.
Throughout the 20th century, filibusters have been employed in both political stunts and genuine legislative debates. Famous instances include Robert La Follette’s 1917 speech against U.S. entry into World War I and Wayne Morse’s 1953 effort against the Submerged Lands Act.
In recent years, discussions about reforming the filibuster have increased. The Senate has previously altered filibuster rules, like adjusting cloture requirements and simplifying nomination debate processes. Critics have highlighted the filibuster’s historical ties to racism and its impact on legislative efficiency. There are ongoing discussions about further reforming or abolishing the practice altogether.
Burgat emphasized the rarity of such lengthy speeches today due to their physical demands and the shift towards silent filibusters, which require fewer public displays but still allow legislation to be stalled. He suggests that Booker’s extensive oration, although not intended to halt legislation, opened up the conversation on significant national issues and demonstrated the value of public debate in democracy.