Without getting into the merits of the cases you presented, for every 3 or 4 (or 50) cases you can identify as support for a filibuster from a Democratic viewpoint, there are just as many that would be deemed "worthy" from a Republican viewpoint.

The overall question is whether more than a majority of elected officials should be required to change the laws of the land, and I think there should be. I also think the current threhold, 60%, is about right. 67% seems too high a hurdle and 55% seems like fudging 50%+1.

Oh Ceiling Cat, give me patience. At best, the "can the filibuster" talk smacks of the same dangerous combination of hubris, impatience and legitimate grievance that led to FDR's disasterous court packing scheme.

Beyond that, the "its never really stopped that much bad stuff" crowd is discounting the atrocities that never made it to the Senate floor in the first place because of the certainty of a filibuster. Think back to 2004. Go take a look at some of the mouth-foaming insanity that was oozing out of DeLay's sty on a daily basis that never even came up for a vote for in the Senate because the certainty of a filibuster would have made it a waste of limited time and then tell me the filibuster doesn't have its uses. At the very least, the mere existance of the filibuster causes the Senate majority to pick its battles.

Beyond what's provable by reference to what DeLay's House actually passed, think of the kind of full blown crazy DeLay, Frist and Cheney could have enacted if they'd really gotten on an unimpeded roll. Imagine the cable asshats of 2004-05, breathlessly and uncritically reporting their brilliant serial successes in enacting their daring agenda to transform America, each new success in enacting counter-factual derangement into law creating momentum for the next in their step-by-step reduction of the nation into just another putinized kleptocratic one-party authoritarian craphole.

Am I the only person whose memory stretches back more than a month? Does no one still remember the dark desparate years of 2002-2006 when the nation seemed to be descending into thuggish theocratic madness and so many of us were genuinely wondering whether the Republic was doomed? Am I the only person who remembers earnestly wondering whether emigration was going to become the only remaining choice for a sane human being in this country?

Have we so soon forgotten the days when things were so crazy that Buscheney having given Haliburton a no-bid to draw up plans for "emergency internment camps"--purportedly for a hypothetical sudden influx of illegal immigrants but obviously adaptable to the internment of anyone the Republicans might want interned in an "emergency"--legitimately gave rise to concern for the future?

We are not going to be in the majority forever. Even if the Republican Party collapses, something new, which will envelope much that was old, will take its place and and we good liberals may once again may be thanking our stars we have at least one stick left to impede the march of folly.

"- A threatened filibuster by six senators from both parties delayed renewal of the Patriot Act in 2005"

Aren't they all "threats"? As I understand it, the minority doesn't actually have to filibuster, but simply threaten to. I have read other articles that try to sell the theory that a senator could conceivably vote for cloture but not vote for the bill itself... yadda yadda yadda, that is complete crap with the current system of letting 40% decide they will say the word filibuster & that equals "Filibuster". There is a big difference between "saying" you will hold out without breaks for as long as it takes reciting the dictionary if necessary, and actually doing it!

There SHOULD be a filibuster in a society that DOES NOT believe in straight majority rule. And this country DOES NOT BELIEVE in straight majority rule. We believe in protecting the rights of minorities and that belief is one of many things that allowed us to elect our first legitimate president in my lifetime (33 yrs).

That does not mean that the minority to should be allowed to hold the rest of us hostage. If the filibuster remains as easy to implement as it is now, then it will continue to be abused; as it is now. 60% is perfect, but only if the 40% (or 1%) obstructionists are having to piss there pants to exert there will.

And, for those of you with a short memory; obstructionist is not necessarily a bad thing.

Paul1950 has the solution to the Filibuster problem--make it a real filibuster.

Remember, the filibuster is not a result of history--it's the result of the lack of history. When the Senate first convened in 1789, it did not adopt a rule as to how to cut off debate, and the first Cloture Rule was not adopted until the early 20th Century. It was not intended to require a super-majority for passage even of controversial matters, but to allow for actual debate and deliberation.

This was essentially destroyed in the mid-1970's when the Senate adopted the two track system, to allow legislation that was not being filibustered to go forward while the filibustered legislation stopped. This was actually the doing of the majority (then-Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MI)). If the majority were to force the opposition to talk a bill to death while other, important legislation, was waiting, the political pressure would start to build up. The practical pressure would build up too--middle of the night quorum calls, losing out on weekend trips home, etc.

Past filibusters required real political and personal committment. Modern filibusters just come with an unexplained note at the bottom of the CNN Ticker--"Obama seeking necessary 60 votes to pass stimulus measure."

An end to the two track system would extract a real price for filibusters, bringing an end to the ridiculous ones.

Trashing the filibuster is so damned Republican! As someone said above, if you don't like the odds, then vote more Democrats into office.

I am completely unmoved by the argument that we can't eliminate the filibuster now because someday the Republicans will be back in charge. This is so typical of American liberals. We can't have a real left-wing third party because it might help the Republicans. We can't try to move the Democrats to the left because it might not work. Apparently we can't do anything that does not leave the power structure exactly as it is.

We can't act from fear all the time. Political victory requires risks. Yes, eliminating the filibuster might help the Republicans sometime. But it will also help the Democrats -- right now. Without the filibuster, the Democrats could make transformative changes. Without it, they will always be constrained by the Blue Dogs or the Ben Nelsons and will have to deal with morons like Susan Collins.

If the idea of being able to ram through progressive legislation with 51 votes doesn't appeal to you, then what about the principle at stake? What principle of democracy says that the minority dictates terms to the majority? It's completely ridiculous. We should get rid of the filibuster now, and get rid of the Senate as soon as possible. The rights of minorities are protected by the courts. All the Senate does is let a tiny percentage of the country make things worse for everybody. The filibuster just exacerbates that problem.

"The filibuster's checkered history as a weapon of pro-segregation southerners seeking to block civil rights bills is also utterly indefensible."
Mastered by KKK leader Robert Byrd D-WV

Hateful and counterproductive as it may seem, the filibuster does serve a valuable purpose. It is a check on the exercise and abuse of power by a majority party, be it Rep or Dem, to force moderation in policy rather than allow whatever majority exists to run wild in creating law and policy. Can you imagine what W and Dick, along with their senate collaborators, would have done, or tried to do, if they hadn't faced the reality of filibuster from the Dems?