Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx
that's fine. I was talking about the set of decisions you make within the current institutional framework. we've probably already had a filibuster argument in the past, but I do want to re-iterate how annoying the "republicans won't be able to do things when they're in power either, so it's in their interest to get rid of the filibuster!" let's not pretend like removing an institution that would then make it easier for gov't to do things is a non-ideological proposition. I may actually agree with you somewhat on appointments, but I'd have to think about it more, and I also think it matters which appointments we're talking about. so there are an awful lot of vacancies that should be filled, but I think we could come up with some compromise that keeps the filibuster for legislation but makes it harder to use on certain appointments.
I don't really see the point of having this discussion if we can't agree that a blanket filibuster on every presidential appointment and every bill brought by the majority is a serious problem. Also, how is it an annoying argument that the filibuster hurts both sides? You want to repeal Dodd-Frank and the ACA, right? You want to reform the tax code, right? Do you really think you should only get to do these things if you have 60 votes in the Senate? Is this only irritating because it's true, and it makes your objections uncomfortably self-serving?