Well, I think we've had a couple threads here regarding the filibuster as it currently stands, and Rachel had a spot on this just a day or two ago.

In a nutshell: The filibuster was meant to be a risky, physically- and mentally-demanding, time-limited form of delaying legislation on the Senate floor.

Somehow* it has metastasized into a simple, consequence-free absolute veto power for the minority that can be used with impunity. Needless to say, this is a power never intended for the minority and imho is arguably unconstitutional.

So obviously I'm all for restoring the filibuster to the demanding and limited tactic it used to be.


* I still don't grok when and where this change happened, exactly. Up until this Congress I had assumed the filibuster to be in its former state and had been blaming the majority for simply caving at the threat of one. Apparently it's a hard-coded change, though, so apologies to the majority in this case =P

[edit]

Ah:

"In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to three-fifths (60) of Senate membership. At the same time, they made the filibuster "invisible" by requiring only that 41 Senators state that they intend to filibuster" -- About.com

Also: Ezra Klein on the history and constitutionality of the filibuster ... I'll have to see if the Supremes have ruled on this or not.


Edited by six_of_one (11/28/12 05:19 AM)
Edit Reason: aha!