I didn't say total gridlock. I said "it causes gridlock much more than bipartisan legislation". That means there is bipartisan legislation but there is much more gridlock. Your view on government as "almost universally bad" is a huge fundamental difference from my view. I certainly don't see government as almost universally bad or good. They do have their problems and how they well they work depends on how accountable they are to the people and who we elect to run government. It seems you have given up on government and do not think it can even "be good" with the right accountability and people? ... anyway, this is the elephant in the room more than what to do with filibuster. I would invite you to look at successful governments around the world and what they can do for their people.
But outside of the reconciliation bills they are allowed (5 per congress? 5 per year? I can't recall) we are getting 100% bipartisan bills. The only gridlock is as to the partisan bills that don't draw support from the opposition party. There is no trouble moving through the bills that are broadly popular across the aisle. I am plenty familiar with various foreign governments. I have lived and travelled in Europe. I have seen what they do. I would prefer a government that doesn't do that. I think we fundamentally disagree on what a federal government should and should not do, which is fine. My issues with government are not in their accountability or efficacy (though inefficient and unaccountable governments would obviously be worse) but the control they exert.
Technically, up to 3 reconciliation bills, but practically at most 1 per year. I don't think there were ever 2 in a year. Well yes, by definition of today's filibuster, nothing can pass without a supermajority. They can't pass not because all of them are so partisan but because it takes just one Senator to stop any bill. As an example, close to 90% of American, including 70% of Republican, supports universal background check and think Congress should pass one, but it can never pass because there is always at least 1 Senator that would block it. If that was not the case, that type of bill will likely pass with pretty strong bipartisan support. The more accurate description isn't that these bills can't pass because there isn't bipartisan support, but because there aren't 60 Senators to support it. If 59 senators are supporting a bill (said 49 from the majority and 10 from the minority), it cannot pass, although it has support across both parties. I'm not sure what you mean by Control, but I imagine you are thinking of individual rights. I'm a proponent of both individual rights and group rights. There are times they conflict and that's when things get hairy. But whatever it is, isn't accountable what's needed to hold government in check of having too much and perhaps even too dangerous "control" over people or groups? I can't see how an unaccountable government would ever be acceptable.
To add a recent example of a bipartisan bill failing to pass due to the Senate filibuster... The bill to form the Jan 6th commission failed although it has bipartisan support. It failed with 35 Senators voting no. 54 to 35 with 6 GOP senators backing it. 11 Senator didn't vote. In the House, 35 Republicans joined the Democrats to pass the bill.
One Senator can stop a bill temporarily, but 41 are required to permanently block something. Yes, you need either broad bipartisan support to get to 60 votes, or 10 opposition votes and keeping everyone from your party in line. Either way, if something can't get 60% of Senators to support it, it probably is fairly partisan and shouldn't be passed. What I mean by control is that as much as is practicable, I don't want the government butting into my life. I don't want them taking my money. I don't want them telling me where to go or what to do. I don't want them telling me what to own or read or watch or consume (or not). Freedom of the individual should be paramount, and the role of the government should be limited to keeping others from interfering in that freedom. Obviously accountability is important. Unaccountable governments are tyrannies. Accountability is not sufficient though. Limitation of power is more important than accountability, because a powerful government that is accountable to a majority is easily used against a minority.
41 is not required to block. 60 is required to pass. In the extreme case, you may have a bill failing with 59 yes and 1 no. As I posted later, one recent example is a bill failing to pass with 35 no (and 54 yes). The point is bipartisan bills do get blocked and easily so due to today's filibuster. That's fair enough on 60 as a threshold (especially when the parties did work together much more often) but at the same rate, if you have at least some on the minority side supporting a bill, it's probably not an extreme bill and likely more moderate. A reason for this is there are still moderate within each party that is likely needed to pass anything and thus, it's not easy to pass any bill that is extreme (even without a filibuster). The US Constitution places strong limits on the government, provides robust check and balance, and provides strong rights for individuals. Limits are in place and rights are established. Of course, not perfect, but there are limits as long as we still are a lawful and reasonable nation. The great harm, one that can lead to an all-powerful government without limits, is a government without accountability. We are starting to see this when bad behaviors and actors as government officials, especially in high office, are not held accountable.
Obviously. Hopefully what everyone wants is a fantasy that doesn't exist. That is the nature of desire.
To a certain extent I can agree with this and I don't think a government that is passing a lot of laws quickly is in all cases a good thing. Again I would refer back to things like the Contract for America and the first two years of the Trump Presidency and to consider what would've happened if all of those things had become laws. I also don't find it convincing that if laws are likely going to be passed that will lead to more bipartisanship and negotiation. For example it looks like it's pretty much widely believed that the Democrats will pass many "human infrastructure" through reconciliation and we instead of seeing bipartisanship on those issues we're seeing more partisan retrenchment. I still think the best course isn't to keep the filibuster as a standard practice but make it more limited by bringing it back to the talking filibuster. There should be a political and physical cost to using it rather than the fiction of we can hold up a bill with an imaginary filibuster while still conducting other business.
Today's filibuster automatically stopping bills is a very recent Congressional behavior. It was not like this for most of our history. For the first ~200 years of our history, legislation passed by majority rule. It was not until the early 20th century that the concept took hold but was rarely used. The civil rights movement of the 50s/60s was when there were a few usages of it ("the talking filibuster") to stop/delay civil rights legislation. A Senate rule change around the 70s did away with the "talking filibuster", essentially starting the new norm of the filibuster as standard instead of the exception. The whole point of the brief history above is we had bipartisan bills and compromises throughout most of our history while there was a simple majority rule. Logically then, we had more bipartisanship, negotiation, and compromises when today's version of the filibuster was not in use. While behavior has changed, we can't simply say behavior is divorced from a successful and functional Congressional. The gridlock itself, IMO, is a large drive for frustration (among not just Congress but the public) and the current level of polarization, non-compromising, and anti-negotiation behaviors in Congress. I also support a talking filibuster. But I think there can be more things done to help push for a more functional Congress that works together. Perhaps, for example, the threshold should be at 55 instead of 60. Or it could initially similar to what Lieberman proposed years ago - start at 60 but that number gets reduced until a simple majority is reached - which could take a long time - but with this, at least there would be good incentive to negotiate and compromise, instead of being a dead bill upfront. Or perhaps there is a rule that there must be 1 significant amendment approved from the minority to pass a bill. Anyway, things can definitely be done to foster a more cooperative Congress, one that starts to be functional again for the American people instead of what it is today.
The first filibuster was used to try to prevent the censure of President Andrew Jackson. This was before the civil war. Congress passed bills by simple majority rule in the Senate for 50 years or so, and since then the filibuster has been an option. This tying of the filibuster to Civil Rights legislation is an attempt to falsely portray the filibuster as racist. It is not. It has been used by both minority parties when the majority party refuses bipartisanship. Sometimes that will be something you agree should be prevented, sometimes not. Yes. There was also the introduction of tracking, so while something was being filibustered on one track, other legislation could continue on the second track. For all of our history, the filibuster was a known tool that was available to be used. Bipartisan legislation passed because people did not filibuster it. The same thing is happening now. It just means that neither party can pass their partisan agenda.
We could learn from the Texas Senate and just repeatedly change the # required for a supermajority every year to however many Senators are in the majority party. So for this year, the GOP could filibuster any bill with 51 votes.
Since he was censored, I don't understand how it was filibustered? It was the first time Congress censure a President and so it took 10 weeks with many debates. Can Congress even can do such thing (Jackson argued it was unconstitutional)? The answer was yes and Congress did censure him after the lengthy debate. Filibuster is just a tool. My intention was to show when filibuster started to be used, not that it was used by "racist". Again, it's a very recent behavior of Congress.
The filibuster can delay as well as prevent. You even gave the example of the Civil Rights Act, which obviously passed, even though it was filibustered. Your example was wrong though, because it was used more than 100 years before the 1960s.
You right, it can delay. My example is on both when it was used and how rarely it was used. I was wrong when it was first used, but the overall point of how rare it was until recently is still right.
