No I really think we need to keep the filibuster. Its a PITA but if we dont have it, when the Dems take control, and I know they will again at some point because people are stupid, they’d then go for the guns and other far left ideas with out being stopped.
Well, we can’t even fix fixed elections and so they will get their majority and then they will kill the filibuster and we are done for anyway.
The dems tried to eliminate the filibuster but Manchin and Synema (sp?) stood in the way. They will try again when they’re back in power. I’m leaning toward the nuclear option now.
“... they’d then go for the guns and other far left ideas with out being stopped.”
I think there have been plenty of opportunities over the decades to go for UK level gun control and they’ve never done that. They’ve nibbled at the edges with outlawing this or that scary looking type of weapon...as if they all can’t kill, only the “assault” types. You have to wonder why.
Look no further than why we still have Obama care even though there have been several opportunities to do away with it and replace it with something that works. First, and this is true in all cases, there’s no political will for change. Change is hard and if it goes bad it’s easy to find the culprit and knock him out of office. So, unwillingness to take a risk. Then there’s needing a divisive issue to get campaign funding. For the Democrats it has always been gun control as an easy sell. For the Republicans it’s Obama care. Why solve problems if politicians benefit from having them around?
It should not be a binary choice whether to keep the filibuster or not. The sixty vote requirement is too restrictive for our times when the parties are so polarized. Reducing the number to fifty-four would accomplish what was done in the past when the parties actually did attempt to negotiate in good faith. However, for confirmations, there should be no filibuster obstacle or any more than a simple majority needed.