Yes, I could have been a little more clear; but I the point I was making is still valid; changing the standing rules of the senate is tolerably easy.
It doesn't require something being declared unconstitutional, since the filibuster itself is merely a Senate rule. Nothing requires it, and it's been modified at several points.
The issue isn't what the Republicans will do; it's what the public will think of the Senators, no matter the party, who commit to the filibuster. One of the things "The West Wing" did a disservice with was the episode about the filibuster. We have it painted for us in the hagiographic haze of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Well, it's not like that any more. It's been changed so that the minority party always gets to veto things it doesn't want.
That's not the way the game is supposed to be played.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 03:36 am (UTC)It doesn't require something being declared unconstitutional, since the filibuster itself is merely a Senate rule. Nothing requires it, and it's been modified at several points.
The issue isn't what the Republicans will do; it's what the public will think of the Senators, no matter the party, who commit to the filibuster. One of the things "The West Wing" did a disservice with was the episode about the filibuster. We have it painted for us in the hagiographic haze of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Well, it's not like that any more. It's been changed so that the minority party always gets to veto things it doesn't want.
That's not the way the game is supposed to be played.