To: IC720 who wrote (454400 ) 11/9/2025 11:20:03 AM From: E_K_S Read Replies (1) | Respond to I guess the President could always Veto any Bill . .But what about if/when Dems control House/Senate and/or Presidency?Legislation could be enacted faster, especially by the majority party, enabling swift responses to pressing issues like government shutdowns, voting rights, or healthcare subsidies.? It would likely break partisan gridlock by removing the minority’s ability to block bills through procedural delay, effectively forcing action on key items and ending the "hiding behind procedure" that delays justice or reform.?? Senators would become more directly accountable for policy outcomes and actions taken, because bills would pass or fail on their votes rather than procedural maneuvering.? Supporters argue that the filibuster’s frequent use in recent decades has increasingly paralyzed the Senate and undermined its role as an effective legislative branch.?? The Senate would become more like the House, losing its traditional role as a “cooling saucer” designed for deliberate debate and minority input.? Raw majority rule could result in rapid policy reversals whenever control of the chamber changes, with little incentive for compromise between parties.? Minority parties would have little bargaining power, likely deepening polarization and making it harder to protect interests of smaller states or unpopular viewpoints.? If the filibuster is gone, the party currently in power could easily pass controversial or transformative legislation, but may regret it when political control flips and similar maneuvers are used against them.? Historically, even removing the filibuster for judicial and executive appointments has led to accelerated, more partisan confirmations, adding to national division.?? Historically, the abolition of the filibuster for legislation would represent a significant shift and is somewhat unprecedented in its full scope. The Senate has already used the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for most judicial and executive appointments under the Obama administration, but removing it entirely for legislation would mark a more radical departure from longstanding Senate tradition designed to preserve minority rights and extended debate.?
