The filibuster is often treated as an essential feature of the Senate, a dignified safeguard of deliberation that separates the upper chamber from the House.
I thank you for this. Conservative pundits I trust have cautioned about doing away with the filibuster, but I keep going back to the fact that it wasn’t in the constitution nor in the amendment that made direct election of senators possible. I do have a question though. What would stop a Democrat-controlled senate from, say, packing the Supreme Court? If they also controlled the White House and hence there would be no hope of a veto, what would stop it from happening?
i agree with your ideas of LIMITING the filibuster, especially with the safety wheels of continuing to use it in certain situations. (It would be a good idea to specify those situations so as to limit their wiggle room).
Today’s world moves at an extremely rapid pace, and law-making paralysis can stress and even tear the fabric of our Constitutional Republic. WTP already voted in 2024 for the President and Congress that represented to us the policies they believed in. We based our vote on that and WTP expect our wishes to be carried out by the government we elected, not stonewalled by a bunch of narcissistic drama queen egomaniacs in the House & Senate.
This ridiculous overuse of the filibuster as a veto tool is frustrating as hell to WTP since it results in a stalemate—- a paralyzed Government! Congress should immediately effect a law that breaks this filibuster and gets about to fixing the incredible amount of damage the Left did, and continues to do, to this country.
Time is of the essence and i can assure you that our enemies are making good use of it during our dawdling incompetent tit for tats.
Congress needs to grow a pair and get this done tomorrow and let the chips fall where they may. We’ve got a country to save in case no one noticed.
An essay that has merit. Should we have a Senate that mimics the House? Perhaps we should return to when the Senate was composed of representatives selected by State legislators not by citizens votes. At least Senators would face a different primary.
There is a lot of "food for thought" in your article. My first reaction is that Senators who are not America First (for lack of a better term) would take advantage wherever they could. Our Congress is so extremely divided right now that I simply don't see any possibility of them working together on anything and that makes me sad. I remember a time when that could have happened but just don't see that now. However, there has to be a way to overcome all the animosity that is so rampant in America. I just don't know what it is.
I had ben initially opposed to ending the filibuster, primarily due to my fear of what the Democrats would do with a simple majority. But then I read your piece and I've been dissuaded. I never really knew the exact history of the Senate filibuster, but knowing it was not an instrument the Founding Fathers proposed makes me more inclined to forego it. Also, nothing will stop the next change of power from simply undoing bad legislation. If we didn't have a filibuster, Obamacare would've been rescinded long ago. Lets do it!
"If both sides accept that the rule should apply neutrally across time." That's a big "if".
It looks like we've reached the point where neither side trusts the other at all, and the minority leaders in both chambers are frozen into immobility by the fear of primary challenges to their left, especially after the mayoral election.
Ending the filibuster under these conditions will absolutely enrage the Left, and something will provide the spark to ignite that powder keg.
I agree with most of your analysis but you left out an important reform if simple majority rule is to be the guiding principle. The power of the leadership positions in both the majority and minority sides must be reduced, making each legislator more free to follow his/her conscience in voting. This would also support your suggestions about the amendment process, which currently gives committee chairs and leadership de facto veto power over nearly all amendments, even when offered by their own side of the aisle. That's no way to run a suppositively deliberative and representative body.
"The Constitution already allows swings in policy through elections".
That doesn't give me much comfort...
I thank you for this. Conservative pundits I trust have cautioned about doing away with the filibuster, but I keep going back to the fact that it wasn’t in the constitution nor in the amendment that made direct election of senators possible. I do have a question though. What would stop a Democrat-controlled senate from, say, packing the Supreme Court? If they also controlled the White House and hence there would be no hope of a veto, what would stop it from happening?
i agree with your ideas of LIMITING the filibuster, especially with the safety wheels of continuing to use it in certain situations. (It would be a good idea to specify those situations so as to limit their wiggle room).
Today’s world moves at an extremely rapid pace, and law-making paralysis can stress and even tear the fabric of our Constitutional Republic. WTP already voted in 2024 for the President and Congress that represented to us the policies they believed in. We based our vote on that and WTP expect our wishes to be carried out by the government we elected, not stonewalled by a bunch of narcissistic drama queen egomaniacs in the House & Senate.
This ridiculous overuse of the filibuster as a veto tool is frustrating as hell to WTP since it results in a stalemate—- a paralyzed Government! Congress should immediately effect a law that breaks this filibuster and gets about to fixing the incredible amount of damage the Left did, and continues to do, to this country.
Time is of the essence and i can assure you that our enemies are making good use of it during our dawdling incompetent tit for tats.
Congress needs to grow a pair and get this done tomorrow and let the chips fall where they may. We’ve got a country to save in case no one noticed.
An essay that has merit. Should we have a Senate that mimics the House? Perhaps we should return to when the Senate was composed of representatives selected by State legislators not by citizens votes. At least Senators would face a different primary.
There is a lot of "food for thought" in your article. My first reaction is that Senators who are not America First (for lack of a better term) would take advantage wherever they could. Our Congress is so extremely divided right now that I simply don't see any possibility of them working together on anything and that makes me sad. I remember a time when that could have happened but just don't see that now. However, there has to be a way to overcome all the animosity that is so rampant in America. I just don't know what it is.
I had ben initially opposed to ending the filibuster, primarily due to my fear of what the Democrats would do with a simple majority. But then I read your piece and I've been dissuaded. I never really knew the exact history of the Senate filibuster, but knowing it was not an instrument the Founding Fathers proposed makes me more inclined to forego it. Also, nothing will stop the next change of power from simply undoing bad legislation. If we didn't have a filibuster, Obamacare would've been rescinded long ago. Lets do it!
"If both sides accept that the rule should apply neutrally across time." That's a big "if".
It looks like we've reached the point where neither side trusts the other at all, and the minority leaders in both chambers are frozen into immobility by the fear of primary challenges to their left, especially after the mayoral election.
Ending the filibuster under these conditions will absolutely enrage the Left, and something will provide the spark to ignite that powder keg.
Leave it alone.
I agree with most of your analysis but you left out an important reform if simple majority rule is to be the guiding principle. The power of the leadership positions in both the majority and minority sides must be reduced, making each legislator more free to follow his/her conscience in voting. This would also support your suggestions about the amendment process, which currently gives committee chairs and leadership de facto veto power over nearly all amendments, even when offered by their own side of the aisle. That's no way to run a suppositively deliberative and representative body.
Nope. That would be a nightmare.