The probable end of the filibuster

Be prepared for a lot of ill-advised historically inaccurate hoohah about the Filibuster.

The filibuster, as we all know, is a "time honored" U.S. Senate tradition that meant, at one time, that debate could go on endlessly.  I.e., a bill could be talked to death.

Nobody really likes talking endlessly to nobody, so the real filibuster wasn't possible until the Senate changed its rules to allow endless talking in 1806, but even then it wasn't used until 1837, and rarely used at all up until. . . the 1970s.

Yes, the 1970s.

So it's a feature of our modern Congressional dysfunction.

The Senate, not much liking the actual act of having to stand there and talk, has a rule that it requires 60% of the Senate to vote to move most bills forward and close the debate.

But they can modify their rules by a simple majority vote.

They should. There's no Constitutional requirement that every measure receive 60% of the vote.  Up until the Obama Administration, most things that could get 50% could get 60%, but since that time things are so polarized that nothing happens.

That's setting us up for coup round two.

And it's antidemocratic. The filibuster should go.

And yes, that will mean that a government with a thin, thin, majority, can pass legislation.  And probably will.

And that will mean that a minority that's barely a minority will probably almost certainly pick up seats in the off year election.

So be it.

Our government isn't functioning . . . at all.  It needs to.