All right, @BernieSanders was pressed on nuking the filibuster and he did something I think is very clever.
He defended the filibuster, but said “If people want to stand and speak for 8 or 9 hours, they should have the right to do so.”
Now, that leaves him wiggle room...
He defended the filibuster, but said “If people want to stand and speak for 8 or 9 hours, they should have the right to do so.”
Now, that leaves him wiggle room...
One thing I’ve discussed a lot with @JosephPatrice is about nuking the *procedural* filibuster, but leaving (or restoring) the “talking” filibuster.
Basically the problem with the filibuster now is that it’s too easy to use. You just say “I’m filibustering” and that’s that.
Basically the problem with the filibuster now is that it’s too easy to use. You just say “I’m filibustering” and that’s that.
In the old days, the way it was intended in the Constitution, you literally had to stand there and TALK to filibuster. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington style.
I think it’s an entirely reasonable argument to bring back THAT kind of filibuster, but stop the procedural kind.
I think it’s an entirely reasonable argument to bring back THAT kind of filibuster, but stop the procedural kind.
The procedural filibuster is ONLY a tool for gridlock and minority veto.
The talking filibuster is a tool for principled disagreement. And requires real *commitment* from the opposition.
I think Bernie’s *potential* solution here, makes a lot of sense.
The talking filibuster is a tool for principled disagreement. And requires real *commitment* from the opposition.
I think Bernie’s *potential* solution here, makes a lot of sense.
