said by FFH:
I wish the Senate would work like the House and drop this antiquated mechanism of foot-dragging and thwarting of the will of the majority. It allows a very small minority of legislators to deny a free and open vote on an issue.
Given that it only takes 60 votes for cloture now, it's fair to say that if it's something important, a filibuster will be broken.
I think it was better back in the days when it took a supermajority to force cloture and
there had to be continuous debate. It made for much better TV, and since it was impossible for the Senate to do any business at all with a filibuster ongoing, it was really and truly a weapon of last resort.
Either way, you're off the mark. If nothing else, the Senate rules are far superior in that they make it much harder to ram through bills with little to no discussion. It can obviously still happen, but it's not like the House where the leadership's word may as well be God.
In this particular case, I can be fairly certain that you hold the opinion you posted only because you're a shill for the immunity crowd.--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.