-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on starting a motion to eliminate the use of the filibuster against most presidential nominees, a change that would be the most fundamental shift in the way the Senate functions in more than a generation (11/21/13)
3 Comments
Allison Brittain
2/18/2014 10:13:12 am
I understand that filibusters can be used not only to stall a vote, but to gain political power through the threat of a filibuster, or attention for an issue by actual filibustering. However, I think that when it halts actual progress because it is employed through party divides, the usefulness of the filibuster for enabling the desires of the public is degraded. I believe that limits on the filibustering process are a good thing.
Allison Higgins
2/24/2014 06:25:23 am
Harry Reid has the right idea here - something has to change for Congress to work more effectively and efficiently in the future. Even still, I'm not sure removing the filibuster from our system is the right response. The filibuster process has remained in tact over the years because it plays a role in the American legislative process. The larger task at hand is overcoming our politicians' inability to work past party affiliations. Whether that means removing the filibuster in the process - I suppose that's up to Congress.
Alex Walkowski
2/25/2014 09:11:40 am
At this point, I feel like filibusters are a publicity stunt over anything. Not so much to gardner attention from other representatives, but from the constituents at large. Nine times out of ten, a filibuster doesn't actually stop anything (that is, in the long term vote. It may stall for a day or two, but it will be voted upon), and so the voice is then directed to the public. Leave a Reply. |