“Our politicians are inherently lazy.”
I’m glad they are. It’s one of the few things we can rely on to keep new laws at moderate flood instead of Old Testament flood.
“It is a lot of work to organize a traditional fillibuster where senators take turns arguing for days on end until they either quit talking or the other sides offers to continue discussion of a bill.”
Why do we want to make them do that work, though? Might they not feel it’s easier to give up and pass the bill, in that case? And do we want more bills passed, whether by pubs or dems? No. Then why not make it easier to block votes?
“One member yelling, ‘Fillibuster’ is too easy. A fillibuster should require a healthy participation and passionate commitment.”
We could come up with a new name for it, if you insist. It seems this argument is not legal nor practical, but, I don’t know, aesthetic, or something. Who cares what makes for a pure and beatiful filibuster, really? It’s just a means to an end.
I see your point and am a fan of fillibuster now. But objectively, I will get pissed off when Romney (hopefully) goes to nominate a Constitutional Constructionist judge (hopefully) and his nominees start to get fillibustered again. I suspect you will too.
I believe the republicans (most) would be more passionate about real fillibusters than the dems ever would be. And I do agree, the less the government does the better.
But we are going to need 60 votes in the Senate to repeal Obamacare because of the Fillibuster. Will we have 60 seats in the Senate?
It takes time to work out all the secret payoffs, can't be done on the floor.
Because an old-style filibuster would tie up the Senate until it was resolved. The more time the Senate was tied up in filibusters, the less time it would have to attack freedom.