US Senate: These politicians held the longest talking

US Senate: These politicians held the longest talking

Record of Cory Booker
Telephone books, recipes, good night stories: The longest speeches in the US Senate






A politician in the US Senate spoke for more than 25 hours. So-called filibusters are a legitimate means in US politics, but require a lot of strength.

If a MP exceeds the speaking time in the German Bundestag, he is immediately admonished by the Presidium. With such rules, the representatives of the people in the US Senate do not have to deal with: Unrestricted speaking time is available. And some make excessive use.

Cory Booker, Senator from New Jersey, has just set a new record for the longest speech. “I won’t stop talking as long as I’m physically able to do so,” the 55-year-old announced. In the end it was 25 hours and five minutes. The democratic senator wanted to demonstrate against President Donald Trump’s policy. Trump has put America’s security, financial stability and the foundations of democracy in danger: “These are not normal times in America. And they should not be treated as such in the Senate.”

Until then, Strum Thurmond had held the record for 68 years. He spoke 24 hours and 18 minutes in 1957. In the photo gallery you can see who gave the five longest speeches in the US Senate.

Filibuster in the US Senate: A physical and mental effort

As a rule, such long speeches are used as filibusters – i.e. to prevent a vote on a law. The phenomenon was already known as “fatigue speech” in ancient Rome. In fact, the lecture by Booker was not a filibuster because he did not turn against a certain law.

If the word is given to a senator, he can speak as long as he wants, and it does not necessarily have to be about the topic of the debate. Thurmond spoke about cake recipes in between, and there is also a legendary speech by Alphonso d’Amato, who read out of the phone book. However, there are rules: the senator must stand throughout the speech, stay in the hall and speak coherently. However, he can accept questions.

A filibuster is therefore a physical and mental claw. Success is usually manageable, often it is more of a symbolic action to draw attention to a concern.

Source: Stern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts