That annoys the public and doesn’t work well. It holds up legislation on everything else and allows for Obamacare to function while the republicans get tied up.
The filibustering senator can hand off speech to a colleague who can hand off to a colleague ad nauseam.
If it was a successful ploy, it would have been used hundreds of times successfully. It is not successful. It is the filibuster that is the winning ploy.
That is the standard GOP excuse for losing when it wants to lose, and a fairy modern practice. In the "old days" when the parties actually disagreed, the threat of a filibuster had to be carried out. With the advent of the UniParty, the mere threat of filibuster was all the charade required. And to your first point, it is the minority's actual filibuster which holds the senate hostage and tends to annoy the public.
The filibustering senator can hand off speech to a colleague who can hand off to a colleague ad nauseam.
Tedious it is, but "ad nauseam" it is not. Please refer to Senate Rule XIX, known as the "Two Speech Rule."
If it was a successful ploy, it would have been used hundreds of times successfully. It is not successful. It is the filibuster that is the winning ploy.
If the leaderships of both parties were not beholden to the UniParty, we would see actual filibusters on important matters. Some might even work, but most would ultimately fail. The truth is that Washington hasn't seen a real filibuster in many years, because the UniParty rigs the game against honest real, uncamoflaged accountability.
I’ve been watching this conversation with some interest. Once a Marine has got the point exactly, but you’ve offered some weak sauce in opposition. Make them filibuster after invoking the clause.
By saying the public would be annoyed you’ve raised possibly the weakest argument I’ve ever heard in opposition to a political ploy.