Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the idea was to eliminate filibustering ONLY on appointments? The aticle seems to imply that all filibustering will be eliminated.
BTW I am in favor of filibustering (not on appoinments) because it eliminates what John Stuart Mills called the "tyranny of the majority".
BTW I am in favor of filibustering (not on appoinments) because it eliminates what John Stuart Mills called the "tyranny of the majority".
How so? I know of no filibuster that has never ended. So if anything, it only delays the tyranny.
Filibusters are not for and have never been able to eliminate the "tyranny of the majority". That is what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is for. True filibustering never has worked much, the famous filibuster on the Civil Rights Act by Strom Thurmond being exhibit A. How long can one talk non-stop? Not too long, and then your issue will be swept away by the majority.
However, what is being debated today is not true filibustering. Like everything else, it has been lost in the debate. What Frist should do is not eliminate, but rather restore the true filibuster. If he did, then the demonRATs can have their say, and then we can move on with what the majority wants.