The natives are restless. Folks are hyperventilating over the existence of the fiibuster in the Senate because it might, just might slow down the Obama train on occasion.
This life-long Democrat begs to differ. We should be careful of what we wish for.
The primary claims seem to be: 1)that the filibuster is undemocratic; and, 2)that it is "unconstitutional". In the case of the first claim: yeah, so what? In the case of the second claim, you don't know your Constitution or your history.
Read below ...
Before you spiral up to do your death dive on this post: think.
Do you believe that Democrats will ALWAYS be in the majority in the Senate? We haven't been for some of the last 25 years. And what has the filibuster or its threat gotten us?
Well, the threat of a filibuster when Republicans were the bare majority in the Senate and controlled the House and the Presidency saved Roe v. Wade, environmental protection, kept even more ultra-conservatives off the Federal bench, kept the rich from paying NO taxes (isn't that really the reason for the existence of the Republican Party?), and it thwarted the gutting of many progressive policies.
You see, the filibuster is a "conservative" method of governing; it is tilted toward impeding quick change by bare majorities. And, unless you think that the nation's laws can't be more right wing, we need to preserve the filibuster and look to work around it. Because if it goes away and someday we are in the minority (and we will probably be sometime in the world's future), those who want to roll back America to 1926 will do so in a heartbeat.
And now, when we can now PROVE we can get 60 votes even on a very controversial and dramatic action, why in God's name would we ever abandon the one thing that has allowed us to have real influence when Republicans stumble into the majority?
So, I don't care if it is "undemocratic" (if by that you mean 50 Senators plus 1 equals "democratic"). After all, the Senate is inherently "undemocratic". For example, my two Senators represent 8 million citizens; the two from Montana (both of whom are gems) represent just 500,000, about the same number as my House of Representatives guy represents all by himself. I think that if the 51 Senators representing the smallest 26 and 1/2 states (no math criticsm please) cast an aye vote, we could get legislation passed by folks who represent just a third of the total citizenry of the nation. How's that for "undemocratic".
As to "unconstituional", what you meant to say was "undemocratic". The Constitution originally directed the state legislatures to select Senators. Clay and Webster, and all those legislative lights were not elected democratically. It took a Constitutional amendment (#17) to do that. Even then, Senators aren't apportioned by population (see above) but just two to a state. If they make my street a state, my street will have two Senators.
And, unless the Constitution is amended again, the Senate will be allowed to set its rules for debate procedure. And I am glad that they can (see above).
Short term gain, whether for a good cause, or just for revenge, is no way to govern a country. The Republican Party has imperiled its future existence as an influence PRECISELY because of that type of behavior. I'd like to think that we're better than that.
Think beyond today. That's what adults do.