The filibuster is one of most anti-democracy, un-American, racist devices ever conceived.

[Augiedog]

It is likely unconstitutional. But importantly it not only allows, in its current form, the ability for a Senator to block legislation without any real cause, explanation or consequences. But more to the heart of the matter it virtually guarantees partisan behavior.

There is no reason for bipartisanship if there is a force that can stymie, single handedly, any and all senatorial action at the whim of a Senator. If instead the parties needed the constitutional requirement of fifty plus one for successful passage of a Bill then the desire and need to work together would be overwhelming.

If you know something is going to happen which would you rather be: the victim of history or part of the making of history? Bipartisanship only comes if you have a reason to participate. If you can obstruct instead of participating you needn’t expose yourself to new possibilities.

That is what the republicans are really fearful of...having to participate in a process that will expose them and their idiosyncratic illogical ideologies that can’t suffer the sunlight of informed debate. Republicans have become so hopelessly steeped in lies, debate becomes synonymous with political derision, divisiveness, and death. The hoards that they represent demand this condition of them.

Debate can inform, enlighten and teach. You cannot inform those for whom listening is optional, you can’t enlighten those for whom facts are demonic, and you can’t teach those who refuse to see. Ignorance is curable, stupid is not.

[Wounded Bear]

1. If it is used sparingly, it is almost acceptable...

but it hasn't been lately. Now everything requires a super majority. That's not democracy, it's tyranny by the minority.

[Big Blue Marble]

2. What about in the first two years of the Trump Administration?

We wete glad to have it supporting democracy.

[bullimiami]

4. No it just wasn't enough of an impediment for McConnell to kill it. He would have in a hot second

If it had really gotten in his way.

[Big Blue Marble]

6. Isn't that the point?

He was unable to remove it as an impediment. Remember Trump kept demanding it be gone.
It held to the benefit of our country.

[Calista241]

8. Are you serious? Dems used the filibuster to save our country in those first 2 years of Trump.

Without the filibuster, we'd have had a federal anti-abortion law, a flat tax, the IRS would be eliminated. The EPA would be gone, or at least neutered. We'd have a fully built wall between us and Mexico, we'd have taxes on remittances between the US and Mexico. The ACA would be gone. Social Security would be 'reformed.' Most national parks would have energy exploration contracts with polluters.

And that's just me thinking on top of my head. The filibuster literally saved our asses. literally.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. The filibuster needs fine-tuning or elimination.

The current form of the filibuster is essentially a veto handed to any senator, without cost.

[Big Blue Marble]

7. Sometimes that works for us

and sometimes it works against us. It is dangerous to assume that it is with all bad or or all good.

[bullimiami]

3. The Senate itself was devised for unequal representation. Filibuster exacerbates that inequality.

What the design really is
A “States House” the Senate where every state has equal power.
And a “People’s House” the HOR where every person has equal power.


No part of that includes a Filibuster.

[dutch777]

9. The Senate (and related states' rights it represents) was a way to get the Constitution adopted

I just happen to be reading the Federalist Papers currently and it is clear that what Hamilton and Jay were arguing against were alternative propositions of either a loose confederation of states, all of which would have to precisely concur to do anything legislatively, or several groupings of states with similar notions of confederation rather than all encompassing union and somewhat singular Federal power. The Senate concept was one of the ways to sell the overall Constitution to those very concerned about singular centralized power at the cost of unbalancing a pure democracy into something just as we see, where minority interests cannot easily be voted out of the way by one majority in the House. The filibuster was a later rules addition and I think a true stand up and talk, with some overall time limit, filibuster is not the worst thing if that is all we can get as improvement. But the devolved vote against a vote filibuster where 41 Nays can stymy endlessly, without having to do anything else, is a clear impediment. Oh how I long for wider congressional majorities for the Dems!

[taxi]

10. Using the filibuster as a device to enable a chosen behavior.

They didn't have to go through the motions. They forgot how. (edited)
Negotiations at this point would be relearning a skill, in the case of freshmen a new skill.

[zipplewrath]

11. The problem is the implimentation

On the surface, the concept of not ending debate, until more than just the majority are ready is consistent with the concept of the constitutions intent to avoid the "tyranny of the majority". Whether it is the structure of the senate, or the EC, the concept of giving the minority out sized influence is as old as the constitution.

That said, the implementation of almost all of these has been corrupted over the decades. The filibuster, when you actually had to continue to debate, made some sense. You couldn't shut up the minority by ending debate before they had their say. But it long ago stopped being about allowing debate continue until everyone had their say. It is now just a way for the minority to prevent the majority from governing at all.

Make them talk. Make them submit amendments. Make them actually engage in debate. And really, the longer it goes on, make them need more and more "support" to continue to debate. Make them state how long it takes to make their point, and then hold them to it. Really, in committee is the time for almost unlimited debate.