Comment by Spooky23
3 years ago
The filibuster is fine, in its original form. Manipulate the parliamentary process to push the date close to the end of session, then have some windbag with sufficient endurance read the phone book for a few days.
The current version, where you declare yourself filibustered, is too cheap. In the old days, they just filibustered stuff like voting rights, not procedures for borrowing money to support the adopted budget.
A proper endurance filibuster is fine, the current version is just pretending
How does that happen anyway. Why does the party with the majority allow a filibuster to happen without an actual speech?
The modern ("two-track") system was designed to be less disruptive to the Senate overall because it allows votes to happen on other, non-controversial bills while the filibuster is ongoing.
Thanks. Seems it was put in place in the 1970s after the filibuster of a civil rights bill.
Still think they should make someone talk somewhere to keep the filibuster going. Cure seems worse than disease. Doubt they expected routine filibusters
I think both are undemocratic, and doubly so since it's in the vestigial organ of our former slave-driven agrarian economy.
There's no good reason to have the senate, let alone the filibuster and effective super majority required for legislation.