Current Events > Should filibustering be allowed?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Should filibustering be allowed?
---

Filibuster? yes
Straight up leaving the capital to force a bill to die? No.
---

There's no reason for the Senate to be more anti-democratic (small-d) than it is by virtue of its makeup.
---

No, I dont think so. Any speeches for or against anything in Congress should be limited in time to prevent it.
---

Only if it kills bills I don't like.
---

Filibusters should be available to prevent bills from going to the floor. Filibusters should only be possible with Senators present.

There are pro's and con's for allowing other work to continue while another motion is filibustered. On the one hand, it allows more productive use of Senate time on motions that can pass. On the other, it allows Senators to filibuster anything they dislike with impunity (so long as cloture is not met). The difficulty in breaking a filibuster is too high in comparison with the ease of use.

There's a reason why the filibuster has lasted over 100 years (1920's). Any majority leader could invoke the nuclear option to end it. In Obama's second term, the Democrats used it to approve federal judges and other branch appointments. In Trump's term, McConnell used it to appoint Gorsuch. But, it still exists for legislation.
---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

There's a reason why the filibuster has lasted over 100 years (1920's).

The reason it emerged then is because it was a useful tool for segregationists to block anti-lynching legislation. A lot of things about our political system have had staying power, but that isn't a reason for their continued existence.
---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

Filibusters should be available to prevent bills from going to the floor. Filibusters should only be possible with Senators present.

There are pro's and con's for allowing other work to continue while another motion is filibustered. On the one hand, it allows more productive use of Senate time on motions that can pass. On the other, it allows Senators to filibuster anything they dislike with impunity (so long as cloture is not met). The difficulty in breaking a filibuster is too high in comparison with the ease of use.

There's a reason why the filibuster has lasted over 100 years (1920's). Any majority leader could invoke the nuclear option to end it. In Obama's second term, the Democrats used it to approve federal judges and other branch appointments. In Trump's term, McConnell used it to appoint Gorsuch. But, it still exists for legislation.

why should it be allowed to be unlimited?

How would you enforce a ban?
---