I respectfully dissagree. Our politicians are inherently lazy. 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.
One member yelling, "Fillibuster" is too easy. A fillibuster should require a healthy participation and passionate commitment.
That said, I agree, it is constitutional per the rules.
“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.