Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey delivered a historic Senate floor speech, with help from his Democratic colleagues, setting a new record for its length. Despite not technically being a filibuster, the speech drew significant attention to an established Senate tradition. Booker spoke continuously for 25 hours and 5 minutes, critiquing the policies of President Trump’s administration. This extensive oration captivated viewers and significantly increased Google searches for “filibuster,” although Booker’s speech did not meet the criteria for a filibuster, which is defined as an effort to extend debate and delay or prevent a vote.
Casey Burgat, Director of the Legislative Affairs Program at George Washington University, explained that filibusters can either highlight an issue or extend negotiations to alter a contested bill. The Senate permits unlimited debate, which has led to numerous filibusters throughout its history. Notably, Senator Strom Thurmond spoke for over 24 hours in 1957 against the Civil Rights Act, holding the record before Booker’s speech.
The term “filibuster” originally referred to American adventurers in Latin America in the 19th century. By the 1840s, it described American citizens engaging in foreign conflicts without government approval and later became associated with prolonged Senate debates.
Senate filibuster practices were first noted in the 1789 session, acquiring the name in the 1850s as a metaphor likening obstructing lawmakers to pirates. Over time, the filibuster became a fixture in American politics, immortalized in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” which depicted a lengthy speech by the protagonist to demonstrate his innocence.
Booker’s recent speech underscores the evolving use of the filibuster and its cultural significance. While lengthy speeches have become less common, there have been notable instances in recent years, including speeches by Senators Chris Murphy for gun control and Ted Cruz against the Affordable Care Act.
Today, discussions on filibuster reform are prevalent, given its history and impact on legislative productivity. Senator Booker’s extensive use of the Senate floor aligns with democratic principles during a time of low public trust in institutions. Although physical demands may deter senators from such lengthy speeches, Booker’s example could inspire future actions in the Senate.
