The majority party is against the filibuster they wail about obstructionism. The minority party thinks it is an essential element in our democracy.

Hypocites.

The parties BOTH flip their views when the majority changes hands. THE SAME arguments Dems are using now the Repubs used before and before that the Dems used them.

Therefore the arguments for or against are positional not ideological.

Gallagher said it best:

If "con" is the opposite of "pro" then is congress the opposite of progress?

Do you have any examples of the democrats using the filibuster while the republicans were in control? The only threat to use it that I can remember is when Meirs was Bush's appointee to the SC.

The reason that's the only time you remember it was that it was exceptional - no one had filibustered an SC nominee before. Hence, the negotiations, "gang of 4," etc.

It's ROUTINE. It's used ALL THE TIME. Jesus our schools are rotten.

Note, of course, that we're not talking about movie-style filibusters where people read phone books. They're not necessary. If Senate leaders don't have the 60 votes for cloture, they don't bother voting.

Oh, the movie-style filbuster is more fun! Where is Jimmy when we need him. Sadly people don't know what goes on in the comittees and how all the big decisions are made there.

The use of the filibuster was different when I was in school than now. As a matter of fact, it became remarkably more of a tool when the republicans lost their majority in 2006.

<link>

Thanks for pointing it out to me that it is used far more than the press reports.

Far left view,

The dems have used the filibuster many times especially with respect to judge nominations. It is not only a republican thing. See attached.

<link>

oldmanwhiner....read the whole thread.