The filibuster is different from what it used to be.
I beleive traditionally, when an opposition party did not want legislation to pass the opposition party would stand at the podium and basically talk until time ran out to vote on a particular bill. If
Here ya go, various qoutes from Wikepdia
"In a legislature or other decision making body, a filibuster is an attempt to obstruct a particular decision from being taken by using up the time available, typically through an extremely long speech."
"Under Senate rules, the speech need not be relevant to the topic under discussion, and there have been cases in which a senator has undertaken part of a speech by reading from a telephone directory. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) set a record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes set by Wayne Morse (I-OR) in 1953 protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation."
Unfortunately, now the following is true.
Current practice
"Filibusters do not occur in legislative bodies in which time for debate is strictly limited by procedural rules, such as the United States House of Representatives. The House did not adopt rules restricting debate until 1842, and the filibuster was used in that body before that time.
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits procedural filibusters, in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can be just as powerful as an actual filibuster."
Unfortunately, when the Dems threaten these, the Republicans do no have the sack to make T. Kennedy stand and talk till his head explodes. They just waffle under and let them get away with it.
here is the link [/link]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(legislative_tactic)[link]