"Requiring more than a simple majority to pass legislation would violate the fundamental principle of free government. It would no longer be the majority that would rule."
— James Madison, Father of the Constitution and Fourth President, Writing in Federalist No. 58
~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY). June 8, 2013
I feel that Politics is like a game of poker (especially in the Senate) when people try to call other political parties bluffs, and catch them in a decision, however, what we have seen the "Filibuster" evolve into, is something that is unnecessary open and to easy to call, for only 60 votes. don't get me wrong, Mitch could call a Filibuster on HIS OUR LEGISLATION, but i feel that whom ever called it must talk for that uncomfortably long time like they had to in the past to filibuster a vote... All and all filibusters in the past are better, and currently they must be reformed to fit their "original" usage.
There is utter gridlock in that chamber, and almost nothing gets done. Although the Founders originally envisioned the Senate as being a more conservative (in the general sense of the term) body, they did not imagine that the filibuster would be used like this to prevent all legislation from moving forward. There should be limits on how and why it is employed.
Yes I think Senate filibuster rules should be reformed because it is too often used as a stalling technique when it shouldn't be. It was created for a reason, but it is now taken advantage. When congress should be working to make laws, etc, they instead are playing games. This is one of the biggest problems with congress today.
A lot of the times watching a filibuster take place is a real eye roller, but it's a stalling tactic that to some effect works. It's needed for the minority party to be able to talk some things out an potentially strike a deal that has some things in it that they actually want. This won't change any time soon, and as already noted on here never seems to be an issue to the minority party.
This comes up every so often, the senate wants to do away with the filibuster rule. For some reason, every time it comes up it is the party that is in power that wants to do away with it. The party not in power vigorously defends it. Then it switches back and forth as power is switched. There is a reason for this rule; if one party has all the power they can't just shove unpopular policies down the throats of the American people. At least not in a speedy fashion. It gives the American people time to voice their opinions. The irony is that any changes proposed to the filibuster rule can be filibustered.