tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4373822906306356117..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Two For the FedJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-5658971686441623082010-09-30T10:23:55.371-05:002010-09-30T10:23:55.371-05:00I can understand both sides of the filibuster deba...I can understand both sides of the filibuster debate: both how it protects minority rights, and blocks the ability to act. But with the decline of the norms of only occasional use, it has become a positive impediment to good government. <br /><br />Of all of the proposals I've seen for "fixing" the filibuster, none have taken the tact of raising the "cost" of deploying one. In the olden, Mr. Smith, days, having to physically hold the floor while you filibustered made it painful to exercise.<br /><br />Is there no combination of sanctions that would preserve the filibuster as a way of signalling very strong feelings about an extraordinary issue, but ensure that it is painful or rare to deploy? How about forfeiting the right of the filibusterer to issue a hold or offer any amendments for six months after the filibuster attempt? Or returning to the requirement that the filibusterer hold the floor for the <i>entire</i> period of the filibuster? Or allowing each senator only one filibuster per year? Or deploying all three at once?<br /><br />Any (or all) of these strategies would help guarantee that the filibuster becomes what it was originally intended to be: a way of signalling the importance of a single issue--and possibly forcing a compromise--when it was of extraordinary import to a minority (but not the majority).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com