Especially since the filibuster was a Senate goof to begin with.

What AI says...

The term "goof" is a casual characterization, but the Senate filibuster is a subject of intense, long-standing debate and criticism within American politics. It is widely considered by many critics to be a procedural accident or an outdated rule that is now a mistake because it allows a minority of senators to block legislation, hindering majority rule. Origins and Evolution The filibuster was not an intentional feature included in the original U.S. Constitution or initial Senate rules. Accidental Creation: The ability for a senator to speak indefinitely 👉arose largely by accident in the early 19th century.👈 The Senate initially had a rule, similar to the House of Representatives, to end debate (the "previous question" motion). The Senate eliminated this rule in 1806, and without it, there was no easy way to force a vote, enabling unlimited debate. A Tool for Delay: Over time, senators realized they could use this loophole to prolong discussion and prevent a vote on a bill, a practice that came to be known as the filibuster. The Cloture Rule: The Senate did not adopt a rule to limit debate (known as "cloture") until 1917, initially requiring a two-thirds majority vote to end a filibuster. In 1975, this was lowered to the current threshold of 60 votes. The "Mistake" Argument Critics argue the filibuster is a mistake or "goof" for several reasons: Minority Rule: It allows a minority of 41 senators to obstruct the will of the majority (51 or more senators), effectively requiring 60 votes to pass most major legislation. Legislative Paralysis: The frequent use of the filibuster in modern times can lead to legislative gridlock, making it difficult for the government to function effectively or address pressing national issues. Undermines Democracy: Critics contend it undermines the principle of majority rule inherent in a democracy. The Counter-Argument Defenders of the filibuster argue it is an important tool for the Senate's function as a "cooling saucer" and a protector of minority rights. They contend: Forces Compromise: The need for 60 votes encourages bipartisan negotiation and compromise, preventing one party from ramming through highly partisan legislation. Prevents Radical Swings: It acts as a check on radical or hasty shifts in policy that might occur every time party control of the Senate changes hands. Ultimately, whether the filibuster is viewed as a "goof" or an essential safeguard depends on one's perspective on the balance between efficient governance and minority protections in the U.S. political system.

The Rinos in Congress are worthless.

The only reason it is broken is because they want only judges that are activists.

It makes ya wonder why the hell Thune is refusing to nuke the Filabuster. Is he a rino, does he hate Trump, is he being paid off, is he being blackmailed? Perhaps he needs to be replaced? Thoughts?

"...democrats want to PACK THE SUPREME COURT..."

Hell, they've been trying to do that since the FDR administration.

I mean, I guess I can relate. I want to pack the court with conservative judges who are moral and live in God's light. I think the difference between us is that I want God's way, not man's way. I want moral high ground, rather than man's sinful low ground. So I am guilty of wanting Trump to be able to pack the Supreme Court too.

Now that they are out of power its broken 🤣 "as its presently constituted." - the wise words of Eric Holder. Corrupt Obammy attorney general. Aka the man who originally started breaking down the rule of law silenty. The man who started the snowball currently rolling downhill or finally, the man who threw the boomerang.

I think the filibuster nuke will happen. I think ots a fish on the line even now. Trump being a wise angler is letting it run and wearing it down. In the end the fish will just five up. Maybe struggle a little harder at the end but still solidly on tje hook. Democrats swallowed trumps hook and it made its way into the stomach of the dwadfish dems.