You can put together 41 votes in the Senate, Senators from 21 States, that represent 12% of the total population of the USA. And those Senators could block any legislation from passing even if it was passionately desired by the remaining 88% of the people.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, or even likely that all but one Senator from the 21 States with the smallest populations would all agree on something, but the Senate's use of the filibuster (which appears nowhere in the Constitution) gives huge power to very unrepresentative minorities. The filibuster is part of the Senate's rules, but doesn't spring from the Constitution.

Regardless of whether or not it's in the Constitution, it has been a fact of live in the Senate since to late 1700's.

It would seem to me that crying foul about a rule in place longer than most of our States is a poor way to win an argument.

"It would seem to me that crying foul about a rule in place longer than most of our States is a poor way to win an argument."

It seems to me that claiming a rule is right because it's old is a poor excuse for coming up with a rationale.

SteveH,

I think most Senators realize that rule cuts both ways - there will be times when they find a filabuster useful, and times when they find it annoying. Hence, they are reluctant to get rid of it for the sake of a single bill.

But here's another point: given that this bill will radically change healthcare for all Americans, and that healthcare constitutes roughly 17% of our economy, and that the country is sharply divided on many of the issues in the bill, is it really a bad idea to require more of a consensus than just 50+1 Senators?

tonydavisnelson:

Regardless of whether or not it's in the Constitution, it has been a fact of live in the Senate since to late 1700's.

It would seem to me that crying foul about a rule in place longer than most of our States is a poor way to win an argument.

Wrong on the dates as well. The ability to filibuster didn't come about until 1806. And it wasn't used at all until 1841.

So to pretend that this is "a fact of live[sic] in the Senate since the late 1700s" is to be poorly informed on American History.

When 30% of the Senate is acting in an ideologically and politically driven manner - yes.

This is the GOP scoring 2 political points

1. making Obama chew up poltical capital and potentially causing him a huge political loss if they can defeat the bill - just as it cost WJC
2. Trying to re-energize their base with chants of "socialism" and "governemt hands off my medicare".

In arguing with people, I have learned that a person is "ideological" when he opposes you, "thoughtful" when he disagrees with you but caves in to your position, and [insert adjective of praise here] when he sides with you.

Unfortunately, public policy debates don't work with this attitude.

There are ideologues on both sides. GOP however has an ideological mantra for the last 30 years that is disconnected from economic empirics.