Thoughts on the filibuster...

[Nexus2]

I can understand why some folks are attached to idea of it. Its gives the minority a tool, means to have a voice to forestall things being rammed through by the majority without debate or argument and getting whatever they want, in effect a 'tyranny' by the majority.

The implementation has become a parody of that, making it effectively the inverse of that, a tyranny of the minority instead. And an effortless one, an instant painless veto, the kind of ill considered and imbalanced rule that rules lawyers like McConnell adore and cling, following the letter of it while trashing the (arguable) spirit of it.

It seems like it really should have been fixed awhile ago but it is allot of potential influence to for either party to give up as the majority switches back and fourth (though its seems like Democratic Party is more helpless in the minority and not as powerful in the majority Possibly due to my lack of understanding. ).

Perhaps in these highly polarized times, it should be gotten rid of completely given how it can be abused and its dodgy (to say the least...) past. OTOH, I can understand the reluctance to an extent. I don't really care about how 'traditional' it is, but getting rid of it would leave the minority pretty trapped. And with fair odds that the GOP my take back the House and Senate in 2024 that opens up some dire possibility.

Being hyperbolic, imagine the filibuster is gone and the 2024 GOP creates something along the lines of "Voting Integrity" bill to make some of the changes states have enacted federal (if possible) or something similarly as rotten. But I guess at that point they could drop the filibuster themselves. And we know they would in a hot New York minute. So maybe worrying about that is a case of being over cautious, missing the cliff ahead because you are busy looking out for potholes. :-/

[brush]

1. It should be done away with. Elections have consequences.

If a party wins it should be able to install it's policies. It was meant to be so by the framers as the filibuster in not in the Constitution.

If a party's policies prove unpopular the will be voted out. That's called democracy, majority rules. Forget this hyping on minority rules which allegedly stops the majority from ramming things through.

The framers were against parties also, so they had no intention of a party in the minority ruling with some extreme invention called a filibuster.

Get rid of it. The people don't give a shit about tne filibuster and it'll be forgotten once it's ditched. The only ones who want it are republicans in DC so they can rule whether they're in the majority or the minority.

[ChrisF1961]

2. Also

The framers knew that there would always be an even number of Senators and gave the Vice President the power to break all tie votes and specified what votes needed a super majority rather than a simple majority.