Some people see the filibuster as a mere nuisance with very little purpose, but I consider it an accidental but important Constitutional safeguard. My 2005 essay explained it this way:
So I think the use of the filibuster to occasionally candidates for the Supreme Court is mostly a good thing.
And, by the way, I added the qualifier “mostly,” because it's the supermajority aspect of the filibuster I'm interested in. The part about making it hard to leave the Senate floor to go to get some food or sleep or to use the bathroom is just a little weird and I could do without that.
But, all of that being said, I would like to eliminate the Senate filibuster except for use in blocking Supreme Court appointments. (If there also exists a finite handful of other similar situations that I'm not aware of, we could rescue those as well, but I’d only want to do this in cases where having a supermajority could be argued to be critical to the integrity of the process.)
Ordinary legislation should require only a simple majority, not a supermajority. That wasn't what the framers intended. It's too high a bar. It makes the difficulty of passing of legislation tantamount to that of creating a Constitutional amendment. It keeps the party that won the election from doing the job it was elected to do.
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.