I have to admit—although I, too, am glad Paul forced the administration to plainly disclaim any power to kill non-combatant U.S. citizens on U.S. soil on “terrorism” grounds—the spectacle had the opposite effect on me. It confirmed my membership in the ranks of those who think filibusters of every sort should be banned.Why? Well, it’s becoming clear all the jesuitical efforts to distinguish “good” from “bad” filibusters really just come down to whether one approves or disapproves of the cause involved. If Ted Cruz conducts a “talking filibuster” of, say, EPA nominee Gina McCarthy because she is a conscious or unconscious agent of the United Nations seeking to implement its godless socialistic “Agenda 21,” would progressives applaud because he’s honest about his objections to the nomination? Would giving him unlimited control of the Senate floor to spread his poison amidst cheers from right-wing radio talk hosts and bloggers, and to the delight of his fundraisers, remind anyone of Jimmy Stewart? I sorta doubt it.
i guess there are things where it would have a role in positive political outcomes, but it is still subject to either one persons madness or a group dead set on obstruction, any filibuster that does not end or lead to the betterment of citizens and country is a waste of time, only those with clandestine agendas would seek anything other then positivity.
Hypocrisy over the filibuster, of course, is a bipartisan phenomenon. You could make a good case that filibusters of judicial nominees are more justifiable than other forms of the practice on grounds that they deal with lifetime appointments. That didn’t keep Senate Republicans—now the most filibuster-prone body of senators in the history of the chamber— from threatening the “nuclear option” to make such filibusters impossible just a very few years ago, but also didn’t justify Democratic glamorization of the practice (i.e., the Alliance for Justice’s Schoolhouse-Rock-inspired “Phil A. Buster” campaign) either.Even if you reject the argument (made again today at TNR by UCLA’s Adam Winkler) that filibusters are unconstitutional, no one doubts the practice is a figment of Senate rules that could be abolished instantly with no violation of its original purpose in the scheme of the Founders. Those who claim abandoning the filibuster would make the Senate just like the House ignore the facts that the upper chamber’s two-members-per-state nature makes it vastly less representative than the House, and that the availability of filibusters is hardly the only major difference in rules and customs between House and Senate.
they need to set down new rules that don't favor either side but directs to a decision that is more beneficial to the people and country, assertions of those in filibuster would have to be proven so, and should not take months or weeks, that should be a right wing plus since they claim Stewart's of the money and it's departure from our treasury.
