re: #440 researchok

Filibusters are a part of the process (for better or worse).

That’s not an answer. That they’re part of the process says nothing about their virtues.

Further, filibusters do not prevent the parties from negotiating in close quarters.

Meh. True, but that seems rather trivial to me, at least as a reason to uphold them.

Walkouts are designed to break the process and negotiating from a long distance isn’t the same.

Filibusters have strayed very, very far from their original design. They were designed so that bills couldn’t ram through without debate from the opposition. Now they’re used to simply stop legislation without a supermajority. That’s breaking the process as well.

Left unadressed, walkouts will escalate into petty, partisan expressions.

But that’s what filibusters— and holds, and lack of confirmation or even hearings on appointments— have become. So why isn’t it important to address that?