I really don't know. But there are many who are talking about the need for some kind of "filibuster reform" or even getting rid of it in the Senate. As many have noted, the use of this tool has skyrocketed under the Republican minority.
I do, of course, remember when Republicans threatened to end the filibuster out of frustration with Democratic resistance to Bush judicial nominees. And I am very mindful of the founder's concern to protect the needs of the minority. That should never be taken lightly. And in the most practical sense, because Democrats will not always (and perhaps not long) be in the majority.
But there is certainly something very wrong with the system as it is. When Republicans can throttle any legislation they don't like with only 41 votes, then something is disproportionate. Rather than end the filibuster, perhaps there is a way to reform it to allow for filibuster's, but to limit them in some way? Or to at least give 59 some power?
None of this makes me respect the Republicans any more, mind you. And I used to be one. My first vote was for Ronald Reagan in 1984, and I voted for Bush's father in '88. My vote for Clinton in '92 was for Clinton and not because of strong antipathy to HW. But that has all ended. I can't imagine (though things can change, that is for sure) voting for any Republican in any position. I am not terribly happy with that, mind you, as I have never seen myself as a party-line kind of guy. But when the Republican party runs people like Scott Brown, who may be moderate compared to many, but who also openly defends the kinds of torture at Gitmo that may well have murdered at least three detainees, or when the Republican party chokes meaningful reform for millions of people and then gloats about it--very hard for me to respect that party.
No comments:
Post a Comment