Thoughts on the filibuster
On the surface, a filibuster seems like heavy-handed obstructionism. On the other, we just saw it used to excellent effect last night to block an anti-abortion bill in Texas, despite numerous and repeated shenanigans. Many of my dear friends see this as an exception to an otherwise cumbersome and deplorable tactic.
However. The filibuster is actually an excellent mechanism of regulation on a legislative body. In general, a simple majority is needed to pass legislation, while a 2/3 majority is required to stop a filibuster. And a filibuster is really only useful at the end of a Senate session. If time is running out on a bill that only needs a simple majority to pass, we're likely talking about a highly contested issue which has come down to the wire. Something that contested should maybe not be pushed through with a simple majority? Just a thought.
The filibuster really is in keeping with our whole system of checks and balances. Think about it. The president (or governer) can't make laws, but they can veto them. The Supreme Court (and lesser courts up to that point) can't make laws, but can rule them unconstitutional. The legislature can overcome a veto with a 2/3 majority, but the SCOTUS is an even higher bar.
We have one branch that makes laws and two branches that kills them. The filibuster is one way to abort a law before it even starts. To me, that seems to be in keeping with the entire checks and balances principle,
Thoughts?
However. The filibuster is actually an excellent mechanism of regulation on a legislative body. In general, a simple majority is needed to pass legislation, while a 2/3 majority is required to stop a filibuster. And a filibuster is really only useful at the end of a Senate session. If time is running out on a bill that only needs a simple majority to pass, we're likely talking about a highly contested issue which has come down to the wire. Something that contested should maybe not be pushed through with a simple majority? Just a thought.
The filibuster really is in keeping with our whole system of checks and balances. Think about it. The president (or governer) can't make laws, but they can veto them. The Supreme Court (and lesser courts up to that point) can't make laws, but can rule them unconstitutional. The legislature can overcome a veto with a 2/3 majority, but the SCOTUS is an even higher bar.
We have one branch that makes laws and two branches that kills them. The filibuster is one way to abort a law before it even starts. To me, that seems to be in keeping with the entire checks and balances principle,
Thoughts?