Democrats are always against the filibuster when they have a less than 60 seat majority (if they have more than 60 seats they don't care about it) and in support of the filibuster when they are in the minority.
Republicans, on the other hand, support the filibuster regardless of whether it helps or hinders their legislative efforts.
The filibuster is one of the means by which our representative republic protects the rights held by those with a minority view and is prevented from becoming a tyranny of the majority democracy. Democrats were all for waiving the 60 votes needed to confirm judges when it helped them seat Obama's nominees and railed against the Republicans adopting the very same rule they established in applying it to any judicial nominee. The current composition of the Supreme Court is directly the result of Democrats getting rid of a 60 vote rule. You would have thought that such an outcome might give them pause in seeking further reductions in the rules which are in place to protect the minority party, but they're not that bright . . .
Well said. I will sometimes get upset by filibusters but I don't think they should be banned. Often a filibuster gives the public time to examine legislation being discussed.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Which is exactly the reason the filibuster exists. A chance to calm the passions of the moment and allow more deliberation before passion results in a bad law.
