The talking filibuster, in my view, is the most important filibuster “reform” measure. It requires no rules changes, but only requires the Majority Leader to abandon the two-track procedure. If the Senate did this full time it would preserve its traditions while allowing full debate. Yes, there would still be filibusters, but since they would be forced to talk their darn fool heads off, they would not filibuster everything. Let’s see the Democrats forced to talk their way out of supporting voter ID. The longer they talk the worse for their party, and that would lead to party elders calling off the filibuster. It would help the Senate start to function again as a legislative body.
Interesting, thanks!
Very informative, I learned something today! A few things, actually. Thanks, Matt!
If CBS can remember how to do journalism, the Senate can remember how to use the talking filibuster.
You said stub sack
The talking filibuster, in my view, is the most important filibuster “reform” measure. It requires no rules changes, but only requires the Majority Leader to abandon the two-track procedure. If the Senate did this full time it would preserve its traditions while allowing full debate. Yes, there would still be filibusters, but since they would be forced to talk their darn fool heads off, they would not filibuster everything. Let’s see the Democrats forced to talk their way out of supporting voter ID. The longer they talk the worse for their party, and that would lead to party elders calling off the filibuster. It would help the Senate start to function again as a legislative body.