- The Senate is a non-functioning roadblock and the filibuster is an obstructive legislative tool.
- The filibuster requires a 60-vote threshold for legislation to pass, making it difficult to get major laws passed.
- The filibuster was not part of the founders' original vision for the Senate.
- Some argue that the filibuster preserves the Senate's ability to be a bastion of debate and protect minority rights.
- However, historically, the filibuster has been used to block civil rights legislation and restrict the rights of racial minorities.

- Filibusters no longer require senators to talk for long periods of time
- Filibusters can now be signaled with 41 votes and a bill will be doomed
- Senators still sometimes choose to speak for hours as a publicity stunt or protest
- Filibuster usage has increased due to its ease and the partisan nature of the Senate
- Filibusters have prevented the passing of meaningful legislation
- Some presidential candidates want to abolish the filibuster, including Donald Trump
- Abolishing the filibuster is a risk, but the author argues it is worth taking to address America's problems
- Reforming the filibuster may not be effective as some senators are willing to talk for hours
- The author concludes by filibustering the filibuster and advocating for its removal

John Oliver explains why filibusters exist, why they shouldn't, and why it's stupid to drink coffee like a cat. 

Connect with Last Week Tonight online...

Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/lastweektonight

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: www.facebook.com/lastweektonight

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: www.twitter.com/lastweektonight

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

Basically, this guy from Schoolhouse Rock.

Fun fact, his last name is Cosby, and you can see why he dropped it.

Anyway, in the lead-up to the Democratic primaries, We've heard a lot of big promises about the fabulous bills candidates will sign when they're elected.

The best way to go forward, in my view, is through a Medicare for all single-payer program.

I have a proposal to build about 3000000 new housing units.

My big idea is a freedom dividend of $1,000 a month for every American adult starting at age 18.

We need to have our transportation system running on electricity.

Primarily because you dropped out of the race 2 weeks ago, possibly because your whole campaign tactic of drive-by scooter shouting was, at best, a little ahead of its time.

The problem is, as appealing as many of those ideas sound, none are likely to happen, even if a Democrat wins, because they'd have to go through the Senate.

And you know the Senate is the country's second most influential body after Dwayne The Rock Johnson's.

Ladies and gentlemen, that man is 5 years older than me.

And look, the modern Senate is a giant, non-functioning roadblock, as any senator on their way out will tell you.

The Senate as An institution is in crisis.

The people's business is not getting done.

The United States Senate is no longer the world's greatest deliberative body.

Senators regularly do the thing that most people can only dream of, leave their jobs while telling off everyone they worked with.

the town's greatest Jumper Juice, and everyone needs to quit saying it.

The truth is, the Senate doesn't pass many major laws these days.

You could argue the last major social program passed into law was Obamacare a decade ago.

And that low level of production is largely thanks to 1 incredibly annoying legislative tool.

Not actually this tool, although he is certainly at fault.

So that is what we're actually going to look at tonight.

Or if you're watching this on YouTube, this morning.

Or if you reach for the remote the moment I said the word filibuster, goodbye, and I completely understand.

A filibuster is any tactic aimed at blocking a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote.

Fun side note, the word filibuster is derived from the Dutch word for fributter, which basically means pirate.

And I didn't even know there were Dutch pirates, but I'd absolutely watch a movie about them.

If you are at all aware of the filibuster, you probably know it as that thing where a senator stands and talks endlessly.

It's often been presented in TV and movies as a heroic act, like when Jimmy Stewart talked himself to exhaustion in Mr.

I'm gonna stay right here and fight for this law's cause.

Even if this room gets filled with lies like these.

And the tailors and all their armies come marching into this place.

I mean, they were all pretty bad back then, but he was especially bad.

is, that movie made the filibusters seem like a good idea.

Just like how The Wizard of Oz made going on a trip with a furry, a vagrant, and an axe-wielding robot seem like a good idea, but in real life, it's only a good idea if you know them.

But, the modern filibuster is nothing like the Jimmy Stewart version.

It's become an overused tool of obstruction, and in practical terms, it essentially means that a simple majority of 51 votes isn't nearly enough to pass legislation.

If you don't get 60 votes for a bill, it's dead.

Which means, theoretically, senators from the 21 least populated states, representing just 11% of Americans, could overrule everyone else, which seems pretty extreme.

So, to quote everyone who's ever sat in a bathroom stall with a three-inch gap in the door, why on earth was it designed this way?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People often claim that it goes back to the

You may wonder why the Senate has this 60-vote rule when it's a straight majority rule in the House.

Well, the answer is that the founders meant it that way.

The Senate was designed to be the cooling saucer, where the 2 parties were forced to work together, and hence that 60-vote threshold.

Okay, so there's a few things to know about that, and The first thing is that it is not true.

There is nothing about a 60-vote threshold for legislation in the Constitution, nothing about it in the Federalist Papers, nothing in Jefferson's private letters, and nothing skillfully wrapped by Alexander Hamilton to the delight of everyone within earshot.

In fact, Some historians say the filibuster was created by mistake, and even then, the first 1 didn't take place until 1837.

So it was categorically not part of the founder's original vision.

It's like claiming the day Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, he also sent the first dick pic.

But she is actually right about that whole cooling saucer idea.

That's a story that comes up constantly, and it goes like this.

The Senate was created to be a cooling saucer to the hot legislation that comes from the House.

The old metaphor George Washington used was, the House is the cup of coffee, where the coffee's very hot.

The Senate is the saucer that you pour the coffee into so it can cool the passions of the house.

Okay, first, never say cool like that ever again, ever.

But setting aside the argument that the Senate should be more deliberative than the House, you might be wondering, why on Earth would someone pour coffee into a saucer?

Well, in the 18th century, people apparently did exactly that.

They would pour coffee out of their cup, into a saucer to let it cool, and then drink it directly from that.

Which is clearly ridiculous, and it's honestly something I wish I'd never learned, because Thomas Jefferson seems like a towering historical figure, until you imagine him sipping out of a saucer like a fucking cat.

But it is true that the founders wanted the Senate to be a counterweight to the House.

They achieved that, though, by having fewer members who serve longer terms.

6 years, not 2, and until 1913, not having them directly elected by the people.

So, if keeping the filibuster is not following the founders' wishes, why do we still have it?

Well, some argue that it preserves the Senate's ability to be a bastion of debate, as this senator explained in 1952.

The Senate of the United States is the last open forum in the world where the rights of all minorities can be fully and freely and completely debated.

And while I would never and have never taken part in a filibuster, neither would I take part in an effort which would, which would result in depriving any minority group in this country from having their cause fully discussed and fully debated on the floor of the United States Senate.

Okay, so first, the Senate's reputation as a haven of gentlemanly debate is at best, overblown.

In the 1800s, senators pulled pistols on each other, And at 1 point, a congressman used a metal-topped cane to beat Senator Charles Sumner nearly to death.

So, feeling nostalgic for the golden age of the Senate is like feeling nostalgic for 90s indie films than actually watching Chasing Amy.

Because set aside the notion that any lesbian can be magically turned straight if the right guy comes along, what's extra offensive in hindsight is the idea that that guy would be Ben Affleck.

But that guy also touched on another major argument for the filibuster there, that it protects minority rights.

Although it is worth noting that the minority whose rights have historically been protected by the filibuster are the political minority who've often used it to restrict the rights of racial minorities.

The Senate's own website calls the filibuster particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, and it was used most notably by Senator Strong Thurmond.

Just watch him announce his plans to try and kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting it to endless debate.

It will be the aim of our small band of Southern senators to make certain that every facet of this legislation is discussed, considered, and expanded at great length, even indefinitely, if necessary.

His goal wasn't to consider every aspect of the bill.

He's like a five-year-old saying, I shall pull the legs off this bug so that every facet of it may be discussed and considered at great length.

No, that little psycho just wants to watch a bug die.

-♪ ♪ -♪ And Thurmond knew just how obstructive a filibuster could be.

In 1957, he stalled another civil rights bill by speaking for a still record 24 hours and 18 minutes straight.

While, according to some accounts, he had his aide wait in the cloakroom with a pail so he could relieve himself while still keeping a foot on the Senate floor.

And it's almost impressive to take a morally disgusting act and somehow make it physically disgusting, too.

It's like if Hitler had delivered all his speeches while publicly clipping his toenails.

Now, modern filibusters actually no longer contain the David Blaine-esque feat of endurance element, And that is because in the 70s, in the interests of efficiency, senators agreed to no longer require talking filibusters, you know, in the style of Mr.

Thurman Goes to the Bathroom in a Bucket.

Instead, now, if you just signal your intent to filibuster and have 41 votes on your side, a bill is doomed.

Which is not to say that senators don't still sometimes choose to stand and talk for hours.

It's just that when they do, it's often a publicity stunt or a protest, like when Chris Murphy spoke for 15 hours to draw attention to gun control, or Rand Paul filibustered Obama's nominee for CIA director for 13 hours, pausing only to eat fun-sized candy with spectacular incompetence.

Which had previously brought a challenge in federal court...

-...to the legality of the authorization to target Al-Waqqa in Yemen, released the following statement.

How on Earth are you eating something so small that badly?

present the challenge of a regular candy bar.

We've all gotten into the quagmire of a normal-sized Milky Way and not been able to get out until everything we know and love is covered in caramel.

Although I will say this, at least Rand Paul stayed on topic.

Unlike when Ted Cruz filibustered against Obamacare.

And when you watch this, remember, the stated argument for this tactic is, it is supposed to be a vital means of facilitating a full and robust debate.

And when you combine the fact that it's now easier to filibuster with the increasingly partisan nature of the Senate, it's frankly no surprise that its usage has skyrocketed.

If you look at the number of cloture votes, which is a good way to measure filibuster use, the number during Eisenhower's term here was 2.

Whereas in Obama's 8 years here, there were 506, which kind of undercuts the final argument made in favor of the filibuster, that it encourages bipartisanship.

That if you have to get 60 votes to end debate on a bill, the parties will just have to work together.

But the reality there is, that is simply not happening.

Thanks to the filibuster, many pieces of meaningful legislation, some with bipartisan support, have died.

From the Manchin-Toomey gun control bill, to the Paycheck Fairness Act, to the public option in Obamacare.

We've reached a point where senators don't so much brag about what they've passed as brag about what they are going to obstruct.

Just watch Mitch McConnell promising a room of supporters that the Green New Deal and Medicare for All won't even see a vote if they ever end up in his chamber.

None of those things are gonna pass the Senate.

song The guy that's gonna make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk.

Okay, Mitch, you really don't have to tell me to think of you as the Grim Reaper.

It's like if Donald Trump said, think of me as a bunch of trash bags from a cracker barrel dumpster brought to life by an ancient curse when a clown fucked a car alarm.

So to recap the main arguments in favor of the filibuster.

It has become so difficult to pass a law, the big issues of our day are now being handled by other branches of the government.

Major issues, from immigration to climate change, are being decided through things like executive actions and court rulings.

Some presidential candidates, including Pete Buttigieg, Steve Bullock, and Elizabeth Warren, want to get rid of it.

But before you get too excited about some of your favorite Democrats, and also Steve Bullock, calling for it to be abolished, you should know, so has this guy.

We have to get rid of what's called the filibuster rule.

And if we don't, the Republicans will never get anything passed.

can make you question 1 of your beliefs, quite like Donald Trump unexpectedly sharing it.

Although I will point out, there are endless opinions that a person can have.

Inevitably, a few of them will overlap with Donald Trump's.

For example, he and I both enjoy a good hamburger.

We both think James Comey is a big, pasty goober.

And neither of us are willing to Google Tiffany Trump's birthday.

We're not completely different, he and I.

But the fact that Donald Trump is in favor of ending the filibuster is a good reminder of the serious risk here.

The side you agree with won't always be in power.

Abolishing the filibuster would make it easier for everyone to do things, including people you might not agree with.

And there have been hard lessons in this regard recently.

It used to be possible to filibuster judicial nominations.

That was rolled back, even for the Supreme Court.

And 1 consequence was last year's 50 to 48 confirmation of justice.

So look, this is undeniably a gamble, and you may well feel that it's just too risky, but personally, I have come around to thinking that it is a risk worth taking.

The Senate is supposed to address America's problems, and the filibuster is making it basically impossible for them to do that.

And some have suggested merely reforming it, maybe going back to forcing senators to pay a physical price and stand and talk for hours again.

But as we have seen, some senators are more than happy to do that, even if they don't have to.

And do you really want to hear more of Ted Cruz creepily reading you bedtime stories?

Or watch Rand Paul battle fun-sized candy to a draw?

So that is why I'm arguing, despite the risk, that we should get rid of the filibuster.

And frankly, what better way for me to do that than with the exact kind of big, stupid speech that I hate.

So please, come with me as I filibuster the filibuster.

1, it's completely unnecessary, and 2, it sounds hard, and we only have a minute left of this show, so I'll just do the only part of a filibuster that anyone remembers anyway.

Here's the beginning part where I'm lucid and on topic and I say, the filibuster has made the Senate completely unable to perform its duties and something has to be

Now, let's jump to the fun part where I somehow fail at eating junk food, which is why I bought this big plastic candy cane full of M&Ms.

And now, let's cut straight to the part where I make an important point while also...

The point here is, my friends, The more you learn about the filibuster, the more it appears to

be a historical mistake that's not serving us well today.

the minority party a voice in the Senate, it should not come at the cost of getting anything done.

And now, let's jump forward 15 hours to my final exhausted point, because what I'm essentially saying here is, requiring bills to have 60 votes is like pouring coffee out of a

perfectly good cup into a saucer and then lapping it up like a cat.

Sure, sure, people used to think it was a good idea, yes.

But at some point, someone needs to ask, does this make sense?

Or is it actually incredibly fucking stupid?

This is the part where my voice gives out and I collapse.


Speaker 0: -♪ ♪ -♪ ♪ Legislation. Basically, this guy from Schoolhouse Rock. Bill. Fun fact, his last name is Cosby, and you can see why he dropped it. Anyway, in the lead-up to the Democratic primaries, We've heard a lot of big promises about the fabulous bills candidates will sign when they're elected.

Speaker 1: The best way to go forward, in my view, is through a Medicare for all single-payer program.

Speaker 2: I have a proposal to build about 3000000 new housing units.

Speaker 1: My big idea is a freedom dividend of $1,000 a month for every American adult starting at age 18.

Speaker 3: My big idea is baby bonds.

Speaker 4: We need to have our transportation system running on electricity. I'm gonna make sure that happens.

Speaker 0: No, Jay Inslee. You're not gonna make that happen. Primarily because you dropped out of the race 2 weeks ago, possibly because your whole campaign tactic of drive-by scooter shouting was, at best, a little ahead of its time. The problem is, as appealing as many of those ideas sound, none are likely to happen, even if a Democrat wins, because they'd have to go through the Senate. And you know the Senate is the country's second most influential body after Dwayne The Rock Johnson's.

Ladies and gentlemen, that man is 5 years older than me. -♪ ♪ -♪ Oh... ♪

Speaker 5: And I know. Whatever you're thinking now,

Speaker 0: I know. And look, the modern Senate is a giant, non-functioning roadblock, as any senator on their way out will tell you.

Speaker 5: The Senate as An institution is in crisis.

Speaker 3: The people's business is not getting done.

Speaker 6: We're getting nothing done, my friends. We're getting nothing done.

Speaker 2: The United States Senate is no longer the world's greatest deliberative body. And everybody needs to quit saying it.

Speaker 0: Exactly. Senators regularly do the thing that most people can only dream of, leave their jobs while telling off everyone they worked with.

Speaker 5: This is no longer

Speaker 0: the town's greatest Jumper Juice, and everyone needs to quit saying it. You're making bad juice, my friends. You're making bad juice. The truth is, the Senate doesn't pass many major laws these days. You could argue the last major social program passed into law was Obamacare a decade ago.

And that low level of production is largely thanks to 1 incredibly annoying legislative tool. Not actually this tool, although he is certainly at fault. I'm referring to the filibuster. So that is what we're actually going to look at tonight. Or if you're watching this on YouTube, this morning.

Or if you reach for the remote the moment I said the word filibuster, goodbye, and I completely understand. A filibuster is any tactic aimed at blocking a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote. Fun side note, the word filibuster is derived from the Dutch word for fributter, which basically means pirate. And I didn't even know there were Dutch pirates, but I'd absolutely watch a movie about them. Avash me mechish.

Baden down jehachish. And remember, dead men tell no tales. If you are at all aware of the filibuster, you probably know it as that thing where a senator stands and talks endlessly. It's often been presented in TV and movies as a heroic act, like when Jimmy Stewart talked himself to exhaustion in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Speaker 7: I'm gonna stay right here and fight for this law's cause. Even if this room gets filled with lies like these. And the tailors and all their armies come marching into this place. Somebody will listen to me.

Speaker 4: Son. -♪ ♪ -♪ Ah!

Speaker 0: -♪ ♪ He was a bad actor.

Speaker 5: I mean, they were all pretty bad back then, but he was especially bad. The thing is, the thing

Speaker 0: is, that movie made the filibusters seem like a good idea. Just like how The Wizard of Oz made going on a trip with a furry, a vagrant, and an axe-wielding robot seem like a good idea, but in real life, it's only a good idea if you know them. But, the modern filibuster is nothing like the Jimmy Stewart version. It's become an overused tool of obstruction, and in practical terms, it essentially means that a simple majority of 51 votes isn't nearly enough to pass legislation. If you don't get 60 votes for a bill, it's dead.

Which means, theoretically, senators from the 21 least populated states, representing just 11% of Americans, could overrule everyone else, which seems pretty extreme. So, to quote everyone who's ever sat in a bathroom stall with a three-inch gap in the door, why on earth was it designed this way? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker 5: People... People often claim that it goes back to the

Speaker 0: founding of the country. It's an argument that runs like this.

Speaker 2: You may wonder why the Senate has this 60-vote rule when it's a straight majority rule in the House. Well, the answer is that the founders meant it that way. The Senate was designed to be the cooling saucer, where the 2 parties were forced to work together, and hence that 60-vote threshold.

Speaker 0: Okay, so there's a few things to know about that, and The first thing is that it is not true. There is nothing about a 60-vote threshold for legislation in the Constitution, nothing about it in the Federalist Papers, nothing in Jefferson's private letters, and nothing skillfully wrapped by Alexander Hamilton to the delight of everyone within earshot. In fact, Some historians say the filibuster was created by mistake, and even then, the first 1 didn't take place until 1837. So it was categorically not part of the founder's original vision. It's like claiming the day Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, he also sent the first dick pic.

No, no, he didn't. That development came much later. 2 weeks later. But she is actually right about that whole cooling saucer idea. That's a story that comes up constantly, and it goes like this.

Speaker 8: The Senate was created to be a cooling saucer to the hot legislation that comes from the House. It is the cooling saucer. We all know the story.

Speaker 3: The old metaphor George Washington used was, the House is the cup of coffee, where the coffee's very hot. The Senate is the saucer that you pour the coffee into so it can cool the passions of the house.

Speaker 0: Okay, first, never say cool like that ever again, ever. But setting aside the argument that the Senate should be more deliberative than the House, you might be wondering, why on Earth would someone pour coffee into a saucer? Well, in the 18th century, people apparently did exactly that. They would pour coffee out of their cup, into a saucer to let it cool, and then drink it directly from that. Which is clearly ridiculous, and it's honestly something I wish I'd never learned, because Thomas Jefferson seems like a towering historical figure, until you imagine him sipping out of a saucer like a fucking cat.

But it is true that the founders wanted the Senate to be a counterweight to the House. They achieved that, though, by having fewer members who serve longer terms. 6 years, not 2, and until 1913, not having them directly elected by the people. So, if keeping the filibuster is not following the founders' wishes, why do we still have it? Well, some argue that it preserves the Senate's ability to be a bastion of debate, as this senator explained in 1952.

Speaker 9: The Senate of the United States is the last open forum in the world where the rights of all minorities can be fully and freely and completely debated. And while I would never and have never taken part in a filibuster, neither would I take part in an effort which would, which would result in depriving any minority group in this country from having their cause fully discussed and fully debated on the floor of the United States Senate.

Speaker 0: Okay, so first, the Senate's reputation as a haven of gentlemanly debate is at best, overblown. In the 1800s, senators pulled pistols on each other, And at 1 point, a congressman used a metal-topped cane to beat Senator Charles Sumner nearly to death. So, feeling nostalgic for the golden age of the Senate is like feeling nostalgic for 90s indie films than actually watching Chasing Amy. Because set aside the notion that any lesbian can be magically turned straight if the right guy comes along, what's extra offensive in hindsight is the idea that that guy would be Ben Affleck. But...

But that guy also touched on another major argument for the filibuster there, that it protects minority rights. Although it is worth noting that the minority whose rights have historically been protected by the filibuster are the political minority who've often used it to restrict the rights of racial minorities. The Senate's own website calls the filibuster particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, and it was used most notably by Senator Strong Thurmond. Just watch him announce his plans to try and kill the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting it to endless debate.

Speaker 10: It will be the aim of our small band of Southern senators to make certain that every facet of this legislation is discussed, considered, and expanded at great length, even indefinitely, if necessary.

Speaker 5: Exactly. He just gave the

Speaker 0: game away there. He wanted to debate it indefinitely. His goal wasn't to consider every aspect of the bill. His goal was to kill it. He's like a five-year-old saying, I shall pull the legs off this bug so that every facet of it may be discussed and considered at great length.

No, that little psycho just wants to watch a bug die. -♪ ♪ -♪ And Thurmond knew just how obstructive a filibuster could be. In 1957, he stalled another civil rights bill by speaking for a still record 24 hours and 18 minutes straight. While, according to some accounts, he had his aide wait in the cloakroom with a pail so he could relieve himself while still keeping a foot on the Senate floor. And it's almost impressive to take a morally disgusting act and somehow make it physically disgusting, too.

It's like if Hitler had delivered all his speeches while publicly clipping his toenails. Now, modern filibusters actually no longer contain the David Blaine-esque feat of endurance element, And that is because in the 70s, in the interests of efficiency, senators agreed to no longer require talking filibusters, you know, in the style of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Mr. Thurman Goes to the Bathroom in a Bucket. Instead, now, if you just signal your intent to filibuster and have 41 votes on your side, a bill is doomed.

Which is not to say that senators don't still sometimes choose to stand and talk for hours. It's just that when they do, it's often a publicity stunt or a protest, like when Chris Murphy spoke for 15 hours to draw attention to gun control, or Rand Paul filibustered Obama's nominee for CIA director for 13 hours, pausing only to eat fun-sized candy with spectacular incompetence.

Speaker 6: Which had previously brought a challenge in federal court... -...to the legality of the authorization to target Al-Waqqa in Yemen, released the following statement.

Speaker 0: How on Earth are you eating something so small that badly?

Speaker 5: I mean, it didn't even

Speaker 0: present the challenge of a regular candy bar. We've all gotten into the quagmire of a normal-sized Milky Way and not been able to get out until everything we know and love is covered in caramel. We've all been there. But that was fun-sized. It should have been easy.

Although I will say this, at least Rand Paul stayed on topic. Unlike when Ted Cruz filibustered against Obamacare. And when you watch this, remember, the stated argument for this tactic is, it is supposed to be a vital means of facilitating a full and robust debate.

Speaker 8: I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them. Sam, I am. Would you like them in a house? Would you like them with a mouse.

I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere.

Speaker 0: I do not like that man, Ted Cruz. I do not like his far-right views. I do not like his stupid chin. I do not like his smarmy grin. I do not like him with a beard.

I do not like him freshly sheared. I do not like Ted Cruz at all. That man, Ted Cruz, can suck my balls. But...

Speaker 5: But again, again, again, Cruz and

Speaker 0: Paul didn't need to do that. And when you combine the fact that it's now easier to filibuster with the increasingly partisan nature of the Senate, it's frankly no surprise that its usage has skyrocketed. If you look at the number of cloture votes, which is a good way to measure filibuster use, the number during Eisenhower's term here was 2. Whereas in Obama's 8 years here, there were 506, which kind of undercuts the final argument made in favor of the filibuster, that it encourages bipartisanship. That if you have to get 60 votes to end debate on a bill, the parties will just have to work together.

But the reality there is, that is simply not happening. Thanks to the filibuster, many pieces of meaningful legislation, some with bipartisan support, have died. From the Manchin-Toomey gun control bill, to the Paycheck Fairness Act, to the public option in Obamacare. We've reached a point where senators don't so much brag about what they've passed as brag about what they are going to obstruct. Just watch Mitch McConnell promising a room of supporters that the Green New Deal and Medicare for All won't even see a vote if they ever end up in his chamber.

Speaker 11: None of those things are gonna pass the Senate. It won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper.

Speaker 0: -♪

Speaker 4: Grim Reaper theme song

Speaker 0: ♪ -♪

Speaker 7: Grim Reaper theme

Speaker 11: song The guy that's gonna make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk.

Speaker 0: Okay, Mitch, you really don't have to tell me to think of you as the Grim Reaper. It's like if Donald Trump said, think of me as a bunch of trash bags from a cracker barrel dumpster brought to life by an ancient curse when a clown fucked a car alarm.

Speaker 5: I'm way ahead of you

Speaker 0: there, buddy. I already think of you that way. So to recap the main arguments in favor of the filibuster. We've always had it. No, we haven't.

It enables debate. No, it doesn't. It protects minorities. Not the ones you're thinking of. It encourages bipartisanship.

Not even close. It has become so difficult to pass a law, the big issues of our day are now being handled by other branches of the government. Major issues, from immigration to climate change, are being decided through things like executive actions and court rulings. So, why keep the filibuster? Some presidential candidates, including Pete Buttigieg, Steve Bullock, and Elizabeth Warren, want to get rid of it.

But before you get too excited about some of your favorite Democrats, and also Steve Bullock, calling for it to be abolished, you should know, so has this guy.

Speaker 12: We have to get rid of what's called the filibuster rule. We have to. And if we don't, the Republicans will never get anything passed. You're wasting your time.

Speaker 5: Exactly. And there is just nothing that

Speaker 0: can make you question 1 of your beliefs, quite like Donald Trump unexpectedly sharing it. Although I will point out, there are endless opinions that a person can have. Inevitably, a few of them will overlap with Donald Trump's. For example, he and I both enjoy a good hamburger. We do.

We both think James Comey is a big, pasty goober. It's true. And neither of us are willing to Google Tiffany Trump's birthday. We're not completely different, he and I. But the fact that Donald Trump is in favor of ending the filibuster is a good reminder of the serious risk here.

The side you agree with won't always be in power. Abolishing the filibuster would make it easier for everyone to do things, including people you might not agree with. And there have been hard lessons in this regard recently. It used to be possible to filibuster judicial nominations. That was rolled back, even for the Supreme Court.

And 1 consequence was last year's 50 to 48 confirmation of justice. Sal Pusche boofs a lot. So look, this is undeniably a gamble, and you may well feel that it's just too risky, but personally, I have come around to thinking that it is a risk worth taking. The Senate is supposed to address America's problems, and the filibuster is making it basically impossible for them to do that. And some have suggested merely reforming it, maybe going back to forcing senators to pay a physical price and stand and talk for hours again.

But as we have seen, some senators are more than happy to do that, even if they don't have to. And do you really want to hear more of Ted Cruz creepily reading you bedtime stories? Or watch Rand Paul battle fun-sized candy to a draw? No! No, you don't!

So that is why I'm arguing, despite the risk, that we should get rid of the filibuster. And frankly, what better way for me to do that than with the exact kind of big, stupid speech that I hate. So please, come with me as I filibuster the filibuster. -♪ Woo! ♪ -♪ Woo!

♪

Speaker 5: And to be clear,

Speaker 0: I'm not gonna talk for 15 hours. 1, it's completely unnecessary, and 2, it sounds hard, and we only have a minute left of this show, so I'll just do the only part of a filibuster that anyone remembers anyway. Here's the beginning part where I'm lucid and on topic and I say, the filibuster has made the Senate completely unable to perform its duties and something has to be

Speaker 5: done, my friends! Something has to be done!

Speaker 0: Now, let's jump to the fun part where I somehow fail at eating junk food, which is why I bought this big plastic candy cane full of M&Ms. How...

Speaker 5: How is this so difficult? Don't help me! Don't help me! I can do this on my own! It's harder than it looks!

Speaker 0: And now, let's cut straight to the part where I make an important point while also... Urinating into a bucket. So... Oh. That's better.

Speaker 5: The point here is, my friends, The more you learn about the filibuster, the more it appears to

Speaker 0: be a historical mistake that's not serving us well today. Hold on, pull down, hold on. Don't look at me. Nobody look at me.

Speaker 5: There she goes. And while it is good, Yes, to give

Speaker 0: the minority party a voice in the Senate, it should not come at the cost of getting anything done. And now, let's jump forward 15 hours to my final exhausted point, because what I'm essentially saying here is, requiring bills to have 60 votes is like pouring coffee out of a

Speaker 5: perfectly good cup into a saucer and then lapping it up like a cat. Sure, sure, people used to think it was a good idea, yes. But at some point, someone needs to ask, does this make sense? Or is it actually incredibly fucking stupid? That is our show.

Thank you so much for watching. See you next week. This is the part where my voice gives out and I collapse.

Speaker 4: Good night! Good night! Good night! Good night! Good night!

Good night! Good night! Good night! Good night! Good night!

Good night! Good night! Good night! Good night! Good night!

I'm going to

Speaker 5: go now, tonight collapse. Goodnight!

Speaker 4: You

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

Filibuster: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver