I can at least have some respect when someone does an actual filibuster and stands there talking the whole time, but if I remember right, congress has a way to filibuster without having to actually do anything.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
That seems like a weird perspective to take.
As I understand it, originally filibustering was just a loophole that people abused to delay or block legislation, which for some some reason now is considered a legitimate tactic. Now, you can argue about whether it is a good idea to allow minority parties to block legislation without sufficiently high support, but ultimately it boils down to two options: either it is or it isn't.
If allowing legislators to delay is a good idea, then why does it matter if they are speaking or not while doing so? Do we expect that only those legislators that don't tire easily and can speak at length for any amount of time are wise enough to know when to filibuster?
If allowing legislators to delay is bad idea, then why would it become good just by exertion of effort? Do we just want them to have a bad time while doing so instead of, I dunno, changing the rules so filibustering is not an option?
I can't imagine what standing up and talking for a long time on an unrelated subject really adds to the legislative process, and the only reason it's there is as a relic of the time it was an abuse of the rules. Either the filibuster is a valid tactic and so requiring that people talk through is just a pointless inconvenience, or it's not a valid tactic and should not be allowed at all.
