Talk:Chris Murphy gun control filibuster

List of Senators who stand up?

I think we should add a list of other Senators who have stood to speak with Murphy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think during the filibuster Senator Murphy mentioned there were only 10-20 Senators on the floor, and probably 10 of them spoke. Also, how rare is a filibuster like this, where it was a group effort? Charlie950 06:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie950 (talk • contribs)

Any chance the seventh, sixth, fifth, fourth, third, second and first-longest might get an article?

If recentism's the only thing holding this windbaggery up, it should probably join the rest of them in obscurity. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

At least the 2008 Parnell–Bressington filibuster (the only other one Wikipedia has) broke a national record. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Me, I'm not so impressed by size, but in terms of notability, the Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 could certainly support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The is a blurb (if anything). No need for an article. The rules have changed so filibusters aren't comparable or even generally notable. I did like the one where the guy read the phonebook and the one were state rep had urinary catheter inserted (not during the filibuster, which would have been even more impressive). But no, this article should probably be deleted and any notable outcome put in the notable outcome. We're not CSPAN. --DHeyward (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't the longest and took place in another universe, but I still think Patton Oswalt did it best. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Video

If anyone wants to download the whole video from cspan its here and totally Public Domain: http://www.c-span.org/video/?411209-1/us-senate-holds-15hour-debate-gun-control&live= Victor Grigas (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Added:

the whole filibuster

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Actual substance?

In all this talk about talking for a long time, the only quote or summary we have of the words themselves is about how just talking is like doing nothing in its worrisomeness. Did anyone say anything more meaningful over fifteen hours? If so, probably worth a mention. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Article about House Democrats sit-in?

Should there be an article about the ongoing House Democrats sit-in? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this sit-in is unprecedented and receiving lots of press coverage, I created 2016 House Democrats sit-in as a stub. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Why only one senator?

I don't understand why Senator Murphy had to go it alone. According to Senate rules, every senator is allowed to speak as long as he likes. (See next paragraphs.) And they're allowed to do it twice in a given legislative day. (I'm taking the CRS Report "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate" [1] as my source.)

This is rule XIX:

When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.

Therefore any senator may speak to any motion. We he sits down, another senator may rise and speak to the same motion. The chair may not close down the debate so long as there are senators who wish to speak. Of course, some of the speakers may wish to speak against Murphy's position but that doesn't prevent other senators from speaking.

So let's say Murphy had ten friends. He rises to speak and speaks for (say) four hours. One of his friends then rises. Let's say a Republican Senator beats this friend and is recognized first. He can talk as long as he wants but he cannot bring the debate to a close without giving every senator his time. (See EXCEPTIONS below.) So our friend bides his time and, when no Republican wishes to speak, he takes his four hours. And so on.

So Murphy and his 10 friends can hold the floor for 44 hours. Then Murphy rises again and speaks for ten hours. This is the second time he wishes to speak so the chair must recognize him. This time he speaks 10 hours and so do his ten friends. Another 110 hours have gone by.

TWO EXCEPTIONS. If the opposition wishes to "table the bill", they're allowed to with a simple majority, which take precedence over the filibuster. But "tabling the bill" is senate-talk for killing it. In this case, the underlying motion was an "unrelated spending bill" that I assume was necessary. And, of course, those in opposition to Murphy's filibuster can always invoke cloture but that takes up to 2 weeks.

This is why, when the minority leader informs the majority leader of the possibility of a filibuster, the majority leader almost always cancels any further progress on the motion. What I'm really asking is why are less-than-minority-leader filibusters not treated the same way. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Grassley bill

"Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa put forth a measure that would have given additional funding to the agency responsible for processing gun background checks, but would not have actually expanded such checks. It also would have made it easier for mentally ill* people to appeal rejections."

This feels unclear at best, biased at worst. This seems like it's just putting forth criticism of the bill without explaining what its purpose was in the first place (and if this was its purpose, why?). This should be expanded to say what Grassley/proponents actually said he intended to accomplish with his bill and what opponents said about it.

*I just changed deficient to ill, because "mentally deficient" is pretty derogatory and unclear (historically, lots of people and groups have been labelled as mentally deficient. )

I assume it meant mentally ill people, but it could have meant intellectually disabled people, so feel free to tweak. Waitalie Nat (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

References