Being able to kill a bill without having the votes to vote it down by either talking for a while or just threatening to talk for a while seems fine to you?
It’s a procedural loophole that allows the minority party to tacitly veto legislation that doesn’t have a supermajority.
Yes, that’s the point. Otherwise the majority can pass any legislation they want. What would be the purpose of the minority if they can’t block anything the majority wants to do?
It’s become too easy. It no longer involves actually standing on the floor of the senate and talking. It’s a purely procedural thing now. OP should have said “bring back the talking filibuster”.
What’s wrong with filibuster?
Being able to kill a bill without having the votes to vote it down by either talking for a while or just threatening to talk for a while seems fine to you?
It’s a procedural loophole that allows the minority party to tacitly veto legislation that doesn’t have a supermajority.
Yes, that’s the point. Otherwise the majority can pass any legislation they want. What would be the purpose of the minority if they can’t block anything the majority wants to do?
What.
In most democratic systems, the whole point is that you vote, and the majority wins. That’s the point of voting.
A loophole where one side can just block voting breaks the whole thing.
That’s just a baffling position.
It’s become too easy. It no longer involves actually standing on the floor of the senate and talking. It’s a purely procedural thing now. OP should have said “bring back the talking filibuster”.