To me, the value and importance of human life supersedes keeping the filibuster.

At what point did our nation stop placing value on human life.

How can so many in a nation of plenty not give a damn about their fellow man? Especially their fellow citizens.

A rule of the Senate, the filibuster is a leading obstacle to Health Care reform and/or the PO. It's a rule that can be changed OR better yet, scrapped.

Human life and livelihood vs keeping the filibuster?

I choose human life.

Health Care reform is patriotic.

:patriot:

If used properly(as it wasn't during the Bush administration), it allows the minority party to save the country a lot of pain and suffering.

Rather than eliminating the filibuster, which we'll regret when the Dems are in the minority, the Dems need to focus much more on getting their own ranks to fall in line. Theoretically the Dems have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, yet the party discipline is so bad that now they're actually considering the nuclear option. What fucking happy horseshit! What is needed is a change in leadership, somebody more akin to LBJ who cracked the whip and got the party members in line, rather than this milk toast, bend over sop of a leader Reid.

And finally, rather than dancing around a filibuster like it was a nuclear bomb, force the goddamn Republicans to filibuster, show the country and the world what utterly useless obstructionists they are. Somewhere in the past ten-twenty years it somehow became mandatory that the Senate avoid even the hint of filibuster, much less the actual deed itself. Screw that, I remember quite distinctly how filibusters usually showed up the minority party as being assholes and obstructionists, and a filibuster was usually dropped after a few days. Let them filibuster then, and show themselves for what they are. Stop being spineless Dems, get a backbone and take the fight to these people instead of looking for end runs or altering the Constitution.

I just don't think the benefits of filibuster are ever properly accessed. But hey, that's just me.

and even then, when it benefitted them, I was like "oh well, its an anachronistic form of legislative histrionics with dubious value"
I think it even more so now.

honestly, the filibuster is basically an adult tantrum. Even when Jimmy Stewart did it. Surely there is a better way to work out legislation.

just IMHO.

It slows things down, but many of the worst legislative idiocies have been rushed. Seldom is there an emergency so great that the rights of the minority can not only be trampled with impunity, but we can glory in trampling them.

It also shows respect for political rivals. This is a good thing, because in a free, non-Balkanized society precisely such respect--if only the attribution of good will, something seriously lacking in current American fringe discourse--is vital. It's really only been recently that filibusters have been taken to be a uniquely partisan activity. There's nothing preventing a bill from having a majority, 1/2 repub and 1/2 dem, and still being subject to a filibuster. The "us" versus "them" are entirely determined by how they'd vote on a particular bill.

"The filibuster is basically an adult tantrum." Oddly, it's when something gets in the way of what my 5-year-old wants (he always has a great reason for why what he wants is the most important thing in the last 20 seconds), he pitches a fit. When he pitches a fit, he wants Mommy and Daddy to make the other kids be quiet and do what he wants, or he wants Mommy to make Daddy do what he wants. He wants something given to him now, without considering the larger picture.

Did I mention he always has a reason for making sure everything is quietly and immediately subjugated to his will?

There is a better way to work out arbitration. Set up a purely non-partisan philosopher king who takes in the suggestions, the best research and polling results (conducted in an impartial and unbiased manner), and then weighs the pros and cons. He (or she) then synthesizes the suggestions, adds his own, and then announces what everybody will have wanted all along. It's called a dictatorship, where only one side has rights.

There are pale imitations, where only one side has rights, but those are only simulacra of fairness, fairness as perceived by the winners. It's a scorched earth policy driven not by an enlightened outlook, but fairly base emotions. It visits the sins of the fathers on their infants and calls it "justice", and delights in grief inflicted on others.

I believe filibusters should be painful. Filibusters should actually have to take the floor when the House or Senate is in session. This will limit them to things that truly matter to the filibusters. Ending a filibuster can be tricky, too: If you stop and call for a vote and the right people aren't there to enforce procedural rules and quorum requirements, the majority