The use of the filibuster in the US Senate has increased greatly over the past few years, so much so that critics wonder whether it does more harm than good. Normally filibusters have been used sparingly by a minority in the Senate to stop bill they find objectionable, but more recently it has been used to place broad limits on the ability of government to operate at all. For example, executive and judicial positions remain unstaffed because Senate Republicans have enough votes to prevent the votes from getting to the Senate floor.
Senate Democrats are considering whether to change the rules that allow filibusters to happen - there is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. They happen because of the process that evolved in the Senate over time. but these processes can be changed. That doesn't means its a good idea to do so, or that the change might not have consequences.
I want you to read up on this controversy and weigh in on it. What would the consequences of filibuster reform be on the the Senate? Is reform a good or bad idea?
150 words at a minimum.
Some links:
- Wikipedia: Filibuster in the US Senate.
- An Accident of History?
- US Senate: Filibuster and Cloture.
- Wikipedia: Rule XXII.
- Save the filibuster, Harry Reid.
- Democrats poised to limit filibusters, angering GOP.
