Interesting article this morning on the Washington Examiner with President Trump calling for a rewrite of the Senate procedural rules to eliminate the 60 vote threshold to end filibuster debate on all legislative proposals. He's called for this before but so far Sen McConnell has not supported such a move.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mick-mulvaney-white-house-ok-with-senate-gop-going-nuclear-to-end-shutdown-but-would-rather-dems-get-on-board/article/2646602

I'm thinking doing away with the filibuster is a good thing in the current atmosphere of hyper partisanship and gridlock. The main hazard is if majority control of both houses of Congress shifts to the Dems then Republicans don't have much recourse to block undesirable legislation (though there's nothing to prevent Dems from eliminating the filibuster at their own convenience anyways).

What are people's thoughts on this topic?

But what happens in a few years when the other side has control? So how many laws do you think will get passed by anti-gun crowd when they have control of Congress and the president is on their side?

Yeah, you mean like Washington State?

Ending the filibuster would be a short term gain, but it would bite all sides in the ass in the long run

I think the filibuster prevents rapid legislative changes when the two parties are at the extreme opposite ends of the political scale, adding stability to our laws and forcing them to compromise in the middle.

Fixed it for you. In the current landscape of career politicians, letting whoever is in control at the time run completely amok is a lose/lose for the general public. Every swing in control the new rulers will enact laws they like, but does anyone really think they will strike down much of anything the other party put in place? Each new law just lets them all be closer to total control of everything and the ability to do whatever they want. That is a big step toward a complete police state.

How about dividing the budget into divisions for approval: Military/Gov't services, Entitlements, Foreign aid? or something along those lines? Meh... never happen.

Let's be clear, the Democrats already eliminated the filibuster for lower court nominees in the Senate back a few years ago.

Make no mistake, if and when the Democrats regain power they will immediately get rid of the filibuster as soon as it suits them, so keeping it now in hopes that the Democrats will honor that and not ditch it the moment it's convenient to them is the height of naivete.

Just do it now so we can get national reciprocity and the SHARE act passed.

Besides, the filibuster is a modern creation and it isn't sacrosanct.

We should want our government to be able to achieve as little as possible. The system is working.

Winner winner chicken dinner. The system is working as intended.

So what happens if/when the Democrats regain control and this happens again only with legislation?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 42fa4ed769

I'll give you a hint. We'll have gotten little of what we want and they'll get everything they want.

Again, anyone who thinks the Democrats will preserve the legislative filibuster after the last few years needs to remember what happened earlier with Harry Reid. They are angry as hell after the tax cut and after Gorsuch and they are out for blood.

Yes they are but if the GOP does this they will be the bad guys who couldn't reach across the isle. If the Democrats do this they will go down in history as the party hell bent to rule with an iron fist

The media would protect them enough to make it a PR stalemate and meanwhile we then have to live under all their desired laws while we get little to none of ours.

A better solution is to require the Senate to go back to the true Filibuster procedures.
Heritage college had a great article on this several months back in there flyer.

In essence the Filibuster was supposed to be only allowed before calling for a vote. It had to be continuous and NO other legislation was allowed to proceed until a vote was called. Therefore it was something that was used very rarely. Now all chucky needs to do is get 41 votes and threaten, other legislation and what not moves forward.

Alpine said it well above. I think Chucky and Dumb-bell (Pelosi) have decided this is a mountain to die on. So like the spoiled children they are they are throwing a tantrum. It's crazy that no one up there will sit down hammr out a budget for the year and be done. I'm with Rand on this one, enough of the continuing resolutions.

EDIT: Ahhh
Here's the link to the article I was talking about: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/senate-must-reform-filibuster/

Quote: "Most members of the current Congress cannot even remember the days when that body passed annual appropriations, agency by agency, often with riders directing how the agencies may and may not spend the funds. "
Pretty telling that was the way it was supposed to be.

No, if anything raise it from 2/3 to 3/4. Also change SCOTUS from majority to 2/3 or 3/4 - no decision means unconstitutional. More gridlock is better.

Is this the unpopular opinion thread?