That's probably what it is. Plus, his lawyers are pretty well backed up against a wall here given that the whole world has watched in full detail what happened. They have to put forth some sort of defense, and as obviously ridiculous as it seems, this may be their best of a bunch of bad options.
Thanks, it was very relaxing. I stayed off technology and away from the news for a few days and at times that's needed to recharge our mental health. Glad to be back at the forum though and now I'm catching up to some posts.
I'm finally done with my vacation from current affairs thread and I wanted to get back to you. I read the article and I agree that Democrats when in the minority have made used of the filibuster plenty of times but so have Republicans. It has been a tool used by both parties in the modem era. What I think the columnist got wrong was suggesting that the filibuster is as he put it a "safety valve that forces negotiation, moderation, compromise and consensus" With the country persistently divided along party line in recent years then there is unbridgeable divide between the 51st and 60th vote thus it is almost impossible to find consensus between the parties, making the US Senate one of the most dysfunctional government institutions. The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of the filibuster and instead it seems to imply a majority vote is the rule, so maybe it is time we go back to such a form of casting votes and envision a new legislative landscape for the Senate. Because the way the current filibuster is used has opened the door to unlimited obstruction, specially by the Republican party. According to what I have found, throughout history Republicans have made use of the filibuster twice as much to prevent Democratic legislation from passing than Senate Democrats have used it to prevent Republican legislation. Moreover, the way the filibuster currently works disproportionate empowers minority senators and the legislative priorities of a small percentage of Americans at the expense of the large population. Making this change may not ensure a more functional Senate but we at least need to give it a try because the current system is broken.
