In response to:

Memo to the House: Adopt the Filibuster

Ahenobarbus Wrote: Dec 30, 2009 1:35 PM
...to the filibuster, and certainly to giving the filibuster to the House. As has been mentioned once, the filibuster becomes your foe when you're the majority party and you're trying to get legislation passed -- or repealed. The example of Bush's judicial appointments has been given, but does anyone recall that the much needed Social Security reform never happened because of the Democrats' ability to filibuster?

I suppose that provides further ammunition for the argument that laws should be easier to repeal than to make, but the consequences of that should be considered as well.

Paul Krugman, by the way, is a sorry soul. Democrats got this ball rolling by their use of the filibuster for judicial appointments. Deride it...

The filibuster is sure taking its lumps these days. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says "the Senate -- and, therefore, the U.S. government as a whole -- has become ominously dysfunctional". The Democrats won the White House and Congress last year and should have had no trouble passing the health care overhaul, yet "the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a filibuster -- a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule -- turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter. And it gave a...

Friday, June 01 | 03:32 AM ET
Friday, June 01 | 03:32 AM ET
Friday, June 01 | 03:32 AM ET
Friday, June 01 | 03:32 AM ET