What is the senate filibuster and how does it work?
Simply, the filibuster is a method by which the a senator can obstruct the passage of majority vote legislation by extending the debate on a bill. This works to block legislation because of a Senate rule that allows unlimited debate time, unlike the House of Representatives, which instituted a time limit for debate. Classically, a senator or senators wishing to filibuster would keep speaking during the debate time, keeping the debate open so the vote can't occur. The senators filibustering will either wear out and give up, allowing the vote, or the Majority Leader will give up and try to move on to another issue or end the session. Senate rule 22 offers another way to end a filibuster, a process called cloture.
What is cloture and how does it work?
Cloture is a process whereby the Senate Majority Leader can start a vote to end debate. Wikipedia has a good explanation:
The procedure for "invoking cloture," or ending a filibuster, is as follows:
A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator's speech.
The clerk reads the petition.
The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Monday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)
On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a "quorum call" is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present.
The President of the Senate or President pro tempore presents the petition.
The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority.
After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:
No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.[9]
No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
Certain procedural motions are not permissible.
The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of.
Are there any other methods for ending a filibuster?
Yes. Wikipedia again says it better than I could:
In U.S. politics, the nuclear option allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the constitutional requirement that the will of the majority be effective. This option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the nuclear option is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion by Vice President Richard Nixon and was endorsed by the Senate in a series of votes in 1975, some of which were reconsidered shortly thereafter.
Why is the filibuster important?
The filibuster should be a way for a minority party to block legislation they find extremely objectionable. In theory, the effort required to mount a filibuster would keep it from being used for every piece of legislation they disagree with. However, a rule change was effected "so those holding the floor no longer have to speak incessantly to maintain control." This has changed the game, so to speak, such that the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to block legislation unless the Senate Majority Leader can count on 60 votes for cloture. The current Congress minority has made use of the filibuster threat such that "We have crossed the mark of over 100 filibusters and acts of procedural obstruction in less than one year." (Sen. Whitehouse)
Can the filibuster be ended?
Yes. The Senate can vote to change Senate rules such that debate time is limited, like the House of Representatives did in the past. However, Senate Rule 22 requires a two-thirds majority of senators present, 67 if 100 are present, voting to end debate in order to end a filibuster on a measure to change a senate rule. If you have a minority party using the senate filibuster and other delaying procedures on a regular basis, as in the current Congress, getting 67 votes, or two-thirds of any number present, is extremely unlikely.
If the filibuster could be changed, would it be good or bad?
This is where I dive into the realm of opinion. I've heard arguments for ending the filibuster a lot over the last year or so and I'm not convinced that it would be good for the country. We all know the Republicans are being major assholes about every freaking piece of legislation Democrats put forward. It would be nice if we didn't need to pander to half-dems and lesser republinuts and could just use a simple majority of 51 to get a bill passed. I'm as frustrated with their obstructionism as anyone else, but I'm not convinced this would be helpful to us in the long run. I fear a Republican majority and I'd fear them a lot more without the filibuster option being available to Democrats. Republicans are not like Dems, they consistently have uniformity of opinion. With just 51 sitting senators and no filibuster, they could pass almost anything, and we wouldn't be able to stop them. While the fortitude of a good number of our Dem senators to mount a filibuster is in doubt, I do have faith in some to at least try to keep the worst legislation from passing.
If ending the filibuster is unlikely and maybe not a good idea anyway, how the hell do we get our legislation passed when the Republicans are an obstructionist blight?
The only thing I can think of is to elect more and better dems. I keep seeing the assertion that the people of this country are more liberal than is reflected in our Senate and support the agenda of Democrats more than they disagree. Why then, can't we pass the liberal legislation we all want? Because it doesn't matter one fucking bit unless we vote for and elect representatives who embody the democratic values we want to see in legislation. Until the populace votes in more Bernie Sanders and less Joe Lieberman, we are going to be pushing legislation that, while accomplishing some good, isn't everything we want it to be.
Disclaimer: I have no qualifications other than I read a lot and I took the standard American Government class in high school. If I got anything wrong, let me know and I can change it!
Sources used but not linked in body:
Filibuster in the US Senate
111th United States Congress
Filibuster
Rule XXII