Originally Posted by Don Zeko
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?
No, it's irritating because it's arbitrary, whiny, and an argument most liberals only advance when convenient. Yes, yes MATT YGLESIAS WANTED IT GONE IN 2005 ZOMG. But most people didn't say a peep about it. And you didn't address the ideological point. Perhaps because it's uncomfortable for you to admit that it's a factor here? Also, you realize 51 and 60 are equally arbitrary numbers, right? 51 is a majority obviously, but being a majority does not immediately confer some moral status that transcends all things.