Talk:Filibuster in the United States Senate

Cory Booker ongoing speech

Does Cory Booker's ongoing speech qualify for the longest solo speech, since, as of writing this, it has been 14 hours and 51 minutes talking, making him 10th on the list. However, he's not preventing any legislation or nominations, meaning it isn't by definition a filibuster. akidfrombethany!(talk|contribs) 13:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you stated, this is technically not a filibuster. No media source has also called it a filibuster. They have said that it is a marathon speech or a talk-a-thon. JER3L1337 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/booker-stages-senate-filibuster-protest-crisis-trump-musk/story?id=120365354 calls it a filibuster. It notes that his intent is to disrupt the ongoing business of the senate. I support inclusion. meamemg (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Ted Cruz's speech was also technically not a filibuster. 2600:1700:5430:6700:9427:4096:DC42:4FD9 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct by my understanding. Source 96.77.119.21 (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo if Ted Cruz’s speech is counted, so should Cory Booker’s 2600:4040:54E1:BA00:1851:D756:52B1:430D (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source for Ted Cruz's speech, which is on this list, not being a filibuster:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruzs-obamacare-nighter-ends-21-hours/story?id=20365712
"But Cruz's overnight speech was technically not a filibuster and won't do much to delay or prevent the votes. The Senate is operating in "auto-pilot" mode and will hold its first procedural vote on the continuing resolution later this afternoon."
That said, Booker's speech has resulted in at least one nomination vote being delayed.
I would prefer keeping Cruz's speech in the list and adding Booker's when it is complete, with a footnote appended to each noting the distinction. Failing that, I would favor adding a footnote to the list about Cruz's and Booker's speeches. NME Frigate (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, The speeches of Cruz and Booker should stand, with a footnote, that it was not officially as part of pending legislation. They both have the desired purpose, which is to oppose governmental policy, and to halt the business of the Senate. 2600:1700:5430:6700:12F:A348:393B:98 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this too. It seems like most articles discussing Booker's speech specifically mention that it isn't a filibuster, but continue to compare it to famous filibusters: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc.
Some articles are referring to it as a filibuster though: [6] [7] (same article as Yahoo, but was broadcasted,) and some are writing it as 'filibuster' [8] [9].
If the consensus is to not keep it on the list, should it be moved to a separate list (possibly with moving Ted Cruz's speech)? I'm not too sure if there would be support for "list of longest United States Senate speeches," so it seems like either adding a footnote or separate section on this page would work. It seems like it is colloquially being referred to as a filibuster, but again on a technicality it is not, so I'm not sure. Pacamah (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support keeping the Booker speech on the list. It in essence serves nearly the same purpose as a filibuster like the unregistered user above said. Part of my reasoning as well is that there is not a better article to keep it on than this, and I would say that it is remarkable enough, especially if he makes the record. However I'd keep the speech on the list as ongoing and update it when it surpasses shorter speeches rather than wait until it is over. Noitadnuofaidemikiw (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A quick search also indicates that Al D'Amato's 1992 "filibuster" also wouldn't meet the exact definition of one, Roll Call & Senate.gov. I think that the current table should include speeches which do impede Senate business like Booker's or Cruz's, but I think there is an argument to be made that one like D'Amato's shouldn't be. JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On Twitter, CNN reporter Raju Manu shared a list of what he calls "the longest floor speeches in Senate history." The top ten are identical to the list in this Wikipedia article. Obviously that's not a reliable source but it may help in searching for reliable sources. The next longest speeches listed there are Robert Byrd (1964 -- 14 hrs. 13 min.), Rand Paul (2013 -- 12 hrs., 52 min.), and Theodore Burton (1914 -- 12 hrs., 10 min.).
source: https://x.com/mkraju/status/1907066492094468521 NME Frigate (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, no one should cite a tweet as a source, but here's parliamentary procedure guy ringwiss on the topic https://x.com/ringwiss/status/1907095752611934652. Clear as mud. Is Booker speaking on a nomination? Yes. Is that enough to qualify as a filibuster? Apparently not, according to all sources. It certainly *feels* wrong to exclude Booker's speech, but perhaps we can develop a second section of longest floor speeches. It seems like there are going to be more and more of these in this modern filibuster era where talking filibusters are not necessary or required to accomplish the action of filibustering. TheSavageNorwegian 19:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Booker is speaking on a nomination, that seems like it would clearly make it a filibuster, according to the senate rule page https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm
"The Senate tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for the use of the filibuster, a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question."
Is speaking on a nomination not considered a "debatable question"? He has effectively delayed multiple votes at this point. Ted Cruz and Al D'Amato's second "filibuster" expressly did not intend to delay any votes and didn't delay anything in practice. Their own wiki pages also call their speeches filibusters, while Booker's does not. If delaying votes on nominees doesn't count as a filibuster (from that senate definition), that would call into question even more filibusters, like Rand Paul, though that would just be on his own page since it didn't meet time requirements for the list. In the end either filibuster is a "loosely defined" action to delay the senate in some way or it's a very specific definition that means a lot of pages need to be modified to have it removed. PinkSkies132 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the comments. I am not here to discuss whether Ted Cruz's speech should be included, though it seems that it should not be either. Booker's speech has been explicitly rejected as a filibuster by The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, CNN, CBS News, the Associated Press, NPR, Axios, The Hill, and Politico. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say. It is not a filibuster. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: His speech could be included in the list with an explanatory note ( {{efn}} ). KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed Alhanuty (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleSirTalksAlot Excellent idea Pandagod2025 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this works fine. Say, what do we think about renaming the list to "longest floor speeches" or something similar? TheSavageNorwegian 21:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not going to matter in four minutes, but I think an editor jumped the gun: Booker is listed in first place at 7:16 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, but I believe he won't surpass Strom Thurmond until 7:20 p.m. He just said, "I'm gettin' close to a record, folks," so he doesn't think he's broken it yet. NME Frigate (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNN reporter Manu Raju wrote this about an hour ago on Twitter (X): "Booker's speech now the second longest in history. The Senate's historical office is now correcting its list. It says — after additional research today — that Alfonse D'Amato's speech is no longer considered the second longest bc the chamber adjourned for several hours that day"
source: https://x.com/mkraju/status/1907183003341598733
Obviously that can't be cited here, but it's something to look for in a reliable source. NME Frigate (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to an article in the New York Times, they did indeed adjourn for a while.
source: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/18/nyregion/d-amato-s-marathon-give-and-take-for-t-46.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Archive link (no paywall): https://archive.ph/jkQEQ
Between 2:30am and 9am Eastern Time, the Senate wasn't in session. D'Amato also yielded the floor for a while according to the article.
```` KieraMedic1701 (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want an official source for this, but Booker just yielded the floor after 25 hours and 4 minutes. NME Frigate (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a filibuster as:
> n. an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures
> v. act in an obstructive manner in a legislative assembly, especially by speaking at inordinate length
In what way does Senator Booker's speech not meet the definition of a filibuster? 199.79.171.218 (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a filibuster and doesn't belong here. The 'sources' that this encyclopedia insist on using are not calling it a filibuster, the rules need to be applied evenly here. 162.201.154.213 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
\*How* was it not filibuster? Not a single person claiming it wasn't a filibuster has provided any sources to support this claim. In what way does a 25-hour speech that _obstructed progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures_ definitionally differ from a filibuster? Booker's speech obstructed the legislative assembly, keeping the senate in session when it otherwise would have adjourned and delaying the next order of business (an ambassador confirmation) until he yielded the floor. I'm willing to learn something if I'm wrong, but no one has yet offered any explanation. 199.79.171.218 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Booker’s speech was not a filibuster, which is a speech meant to halt the advance of a specific piece of legislation. Instead, Booker’s performance was a broader critique of Trump’s agenda, meant to hold up the Senate’s business and draw attention to what Democrats are doing to contest the president.

per The Associated Press

Booker, whose speech was not a filibuster -- which is a tactic to delay or kill action on specific legislation -- passed Thurmond's record and continued to speak.

per Reuters

Although it is not considered a filibuster since he is not attempting to stall or block legislation, the Senate floor will remain open so long as Booker is speaking.

per USA Today

Unlike Mr. Thurmond’s speech, Mr. Booker’s was not a filibuster — a procedural tactic that has been used to block legislation on many issues — because it did not come during a debate over a specific bill or nominee.

per The New York Times
I have no strong feelings about this speech's inclusion on this article, but if it is included, it should come with a footnote clarifying that this speech was not technically a filibuster. OceanGunfish (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Given these sources, my follow-up question is: where is it defined that a filibuster must "halt the advance of a specific piece of legislation"? These sources do not specify, and the OED defines a filibuster as "an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures", which Booker's speech objectively was. The senate could not adjourn, nor could it advance to the next order of business until Sen Booker yielded the floor. Seems like a textbook example of a filibuster according to the definition of the word? 199.79.171.218 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The senate defines it as "a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question." [[10]]. He wasn't trying to hold up a vote on the pending bill/nomination, per se. But overall, I think the key here is "loosely defined" and we need to wait and see whether this is generally considered a filibuster and included on the list of the longest ones. meamemg (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this — I think there might an earlier reference that's supposed to be to this source whose link is broken. To my mind, this still makes it look rather cut and dried. Sen Booker's speech was a *filibuster* according to the general definition of the English word, even though it _might_ not be considered a filibuster according to the US Senate's procedural definition of a filibuster. And whether or not the US Senate regards it as a filibuster based on this technicality seems irrelevant for the historical record of longest filibusters. But as you say, I guess we'll see. Although, I find it curious that Ted Cruz's speech also appears to fail to meet the US Senate's definition but is nonetheless labelled as a filibuster on this list, whereas Cory Booker's is labelled as a speech. 199.79.171.218 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some news sources are calling it a filibuster, others are not. There is obvious ambiguity, and the most sensible solution in my mind is to leave the list as is (including Booker and Cruz) and make footnotes as appropriate for speeches that didn't clearly or directly stop other Senate proceedings. At least in a US Senate context, the purpose of these extended speeches by a single Senator is pretty uniform: to oppose one or more pieces of contentious legislation presented by the Majority. Whether or not the speech occurs at a point in the legislative procedure where it can actually impede the proposed legislation or other work of the Senate is important, but not critical to the broader discussion of the fundamental purpose of the filibuster, in my view. Hence my support of leaving the list as is and adding footnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin2600 (talk • contribs)

There seems to be consensus to include the speech on the list, with a notation on both Booker and Cruz that there are some source that do not consider it to meet the definition of a filibuster? Anyone disagree at this point? meamemg (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100%, it is a workable compromise Alhanuty (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both Booker and Cruz should be on there. --Plumber (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is not a filibuster. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given Wikipedia:BALANCE, and that there are sources cited here that both call it a filibuster and that don't, what's the justification for not including it at all? meamemg (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There can be no justification for that under WP:BALANCE and WP:RS. --Plumber (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Booker is technically not a filibuster, the rules are the rules.
Longest speech? Yes <<chramo94>> (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be cited here in itself, but I think it's worthy of noting what Gregory Koger, a political scientist at the University of Miami who wrote the 2010 book Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate -- which probably should be cited in this Wikipedia article -- said on Bluesky this evening about Sen. Cory Booker's speech over the past 25 hours. Koger says this is a filibuster because that term "is defined as parliamentary delay for strategic gain." He says that in 1957, some of Strom Thurmond's fellow segregationist senators "complained that his effort was always a showhorse spectacle rather than a true filibuster, which required a team effort." Thurmond's filibuster was actually interrupted by the swearing-in ceremony for a new senator, William Proxmire (who appears on this article's list of longest filibusters for a 1981 speech).
source: https://bsky.app/profile/gregorykoger.bsky.social/post/3llry34ar5k2e NME Frigate (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strom Thurmond yielding the floor is cited and sourced in the wikipedia page for Strom Thurmond's Filibuster, so I can't read the whole book, but there is a source for it already.
The news organizations are using the senate's definition of a filibuster to say this isn't a filibuster. I found this by searching the quotes they use in the articles cited. Here's the senate definition: https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm
That definition doesn't align with what they're saying. Speaking about a nomination is a debatable question. Why must we rely on journalists interpreting the definition rather than the definition itself? PinkSkies132 (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of kerfluffle in separate threads here in the immediate wake of Booker's speech, but I've now changed the "top 10" list to remove Booker's speech since it seems fairly clear now that RS are not considering this a filibuster. I've also added a footnote noting Booker's speech, as it certainly ought to be mentioned if not included outright. AviationFreak💬 20:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note, anticipating some pushback, that Cruz's speech has at least one reference calling it a filibuster. I don't have the time to find other sources at this point (the source here is what's given in the linked article), but this was my rationale for removing Booker while leaving Cruz on. Sources are paramount on WP, even if they are themselves inconsistent. I'm not opposed to noting a source inconsistency in this area if it's clearly the case that Cruz and Booker both spoke at the same time with respect to the legislative procedure (not terribly well-versed here, tbh). AviationFreak💬 20:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The senate themselves disagree. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm On their page about the history of the filibuster, they updated the end of it to talk about how the most well known type of filibuster is the marathon speech and then gives famous examples, ending with "The record for the longest individual speech goes to New Jersey's Cory Booker, who spoke for 25 hours, 8 minutes, against the policies of the Donald J. Trump administration in April, 2025."
Prior to this edit, the end of the paragraph read "The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's Strom Thurmond, who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957."
So the senate themselves are counting it as the longest filibuster, and news articles are being edited/more are being written that describe it as a filibuster. This should be reverted EliotWL (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which news sources are now calling the speech a filibuster? I'm only finding even more not-a-filibuster sources – BBC says Although it was not a filibuster, and Time says it does not qualify as a traditional filibuster, in addition to the AP, Reuters, USA Today, and NYT sources I linked above. OceanGunfish (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ABC News, Fox News, and the Independent all talk about him breaking the record and do not say that it isn't a filibuster. And again, the senate themselves changed the language from Thurmond holding the record to him holding it. EliotWL (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "senate themselves" are a WP:PRIMARY source. We use WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources on Wikipedia.
You said news articles are being edited/more are being written that describe it as a filibuster but haven't provided any that do. Was that untrue?
In fact, I found an article from The Independent that says it was not technically a filibuster. Fox says it was not a filibuster in the most conventional sense. OceanGunfish (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im aware that we use reliable secondary sources. The articles from the 1st all talk about it as not a filibuster, correct. It's the articles that have come out after the senate decided that it was a filibuster where they stopped saying it wasn't one. I did see a few that were edited from before that but I do not remember where I saw them when I was looking originally, so Im sorry that I can't grab those links for you. But using the articles from before the primary source made their stance known to say that that it isn't a filibuster is just out of date information EliotWL (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the secondary sources start calling it a filibuster, then at that time we can too. For now, the overwhelming majority of provided sources say it was not a filibuster.
I went looking for the most recent articles I could find, and I found an NPR article from just this morning stating Booker's efforts didn't technically constitute a filibuster. OceanGunfish (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1986 D'Amato speech inclusion

It appears that the Senate historical office has decided to remove D'Amato's 1986 speech, considered 2nd longest, from the list, as the Senate adjourned for several hours at the time. I could only confirm through a CNN journalist tweet, however, I think there is a case to remove this speech from the list. Probably should wait until a better source confirms it though: https://x.com/mkraju/status/1907183003341598733 Mirashhh (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that it is no longer listed on the Senate website senate.gov, I agree with removing it. According to a contemporary NYT article he spoke for 13hrs and 17 min before the Senate recessed for 6.5hours, after which he resumed speaking for another 6hrs and 47min until agreeing to a compromise. I think it should 100% be removed, it clearly doesn't even make the top 10, let alone #2. JerseyThroughandThrough (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it makes sense to remove it, that means we would also need a good source for the new 10th longest filibuster Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strom Thurmond took a restroom break?

According to this 2013 article in Slate about Rand Paul's 12 hr. 52 min. filibuster, Strom Thurmond in 1957 availed himself of at least one opportunity to leave the floor and use the restroom:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/03/rand-paul-bathroom-break-senator-s-bladder-ends-filibuster-12-hours-shy-of-strom-thurmond-s-1957-record.html

(All the reporting I've seen today indicates that Cory Booker never left the Senate floor, even when yielding for questions, but I certainly may have missed something.)

How should this be addressed here? NME Frigate (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to NPR, the assertion is apparently true - Thurmond took a break.
Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/07/173736882/how-did-strom-thurmond-last-through-his-24-hour-filibuster
Booker never left the floor according to NBC News - thus he never got a single break.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-cory-booker-holds-hours-long-overnight-speech-taking-aim-trump-adm-rcna199014
KieraMedic1701 (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thurmond did indeed take a break, but by a bit of a quirk (see here, but ultimately it seems nobody objected - perhaps nobody who would've been inclined to object noticed or was present). This doesn't change the length of the filibuster though, since virtually every source on the topic regards the filibuster as a 24-hour affair - this is also how it was recognized in its time. AviationFreak💬 20:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is still officially a 24 hour filibuster, I do think a note of the break should be added in some way, such as with an asterisk Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consistencies in this article.

Both Alfonse D'Amato and Ted Cruz's speeches aren't also filibusters, so they should be removed from the list. Dagmar03 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would ere on the side of both including them and reinstating Senator Booker's speech in the table because I think this article would be better served displaying them side by side. Of course we could devise a way to demonstrate the categorical distinction between "this stalled a bill" and "this did not stall a bill," but as is we should celebrate the rhetorical achievements of these three senators in my view. Trilomonk (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From an ABC news story in 2013:
"But Cruz's overnight speech was technically not a filibuster and won't do much to delay or prevent the votes. The Senate is operating in "auto-pilot" mode and will hold its first procedural vote on the continuing resolution later this afternoon."
source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruzs-obamacare-nighter-ends-21-hours/story?id=20365712 NME Frigate (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate