Time to change the filibuster rule

[cally]

The filibuster no longer serves to protect the rights of the minority, but supports a broken government. Their is no legislative compromise, or working on issues, or listening to the minority. Instead, it's just a way to prevent appointments, legislation, and leads to inaction during two wars, an economic crisis, and a climate crisis that will end our current civilization.

We cannot allow our broken government to continue. We cannot allow inaction on current issues. We need a functioning government. The filibuster must end.

I suggest that the Democrats adopt the nuclear option with a twist. We allow 5 to ten filibusters per term by the minority party and we require that all filibusters occur in public, in the Senate Chamber. The silent filibuster is ended.

[ixion]

1. the government is broken, but it has nothing to do with the filibuster, which should NOT

be changed by the majority, just 'cause the minority is actually using it.

The PROBLEM is that our elected congress is corrupt, that is: bought and paid for.

All the legal gerrymandering in the world will not change that.

Oh, and changing the rules because you don't like the game is CHEATING.

[AlinPA]

2. We will need the filibuster when we are in minority; if Reid and "leadership" continue

to be pushed around by republicans, that might be sooner than many think.

[melm00se]

3. Several years ago

there was talk of the "nuclear option" by the republicans and that provoked very strident calls regarding this. Howard Dean was quoted as saying that republicans "blow up 200 years of Senate history" with their so called nuclear option.

now, less than 5 years later, there are calls, like yours, about doing the same thing.

it is either outrageous behavior or not, regardless of which side of the aisle is proposing it.

[optimator]

4. we are going to need it when repubs take over

but then again , dems would never use it so maybe you are right.