Way back when the GOP wanted to get rid of the Fillibuster. http://www.nytimes.com/...
I think we should have let them. They would have paid a heavier political cost and been blamed for changing extra constitutional rules. Imagine how different the healthcare debate may have been if we only needed 51 votes for a reform bill? We would only have needed a simple majority.
It's interesting how that threat would have eventually turned out to favour the left in a great way... It's a huge what if?
No point in removing it now though.
"WASHINGTON — "Half of official Washington is here to see democracy's finest show, the filibuster. The right to talk your head off! The American privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form!" - A reporter in the climactic scene of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," 1939."
The Democrats would never dare to use the rule of Fillibuster and it's only gotten in our way in general for most of the things we want. And mr Frist has a point about the tyranny of the minority.
"In a Nov. 12 speech to the Federalist Society, the association of conservative jurists and lawyers, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, vowed to end the Democrats' use of the filibuster to prevent floor votes on President Bush's judicial nominees.
"This filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority," Dr. Frist said. "The Senate cannot allow the filibuster of circuit court nominees to continue. Nor can we allow the filibuster to extend to potential Supreme Court nominees."
When the time comes I think we ought to let the next Frist shove through a removal of the Fillibuster. Then we can bide our time until we can scrape together 51 votes for a PO.