Perhaps that only means that Democrats are introducing more objectionable legislation. Perhaps not, but I wouldn't use the graph to automatically draw the conclusion of Republican abuse.

I'll take it you were asleep for the entire bush administration...

James I think you and others should note that the 60 vote majority requirement had nothing to do with a threat of filibuster, but because the rules require that this kind of deficit spending measure receive a 3/5's majority to pass. Senate rules themselves required the 60 votes. Granted the GOP may have been threatening filibuster, but with or without a filibuster threat 60 votes were going to be required for passage.

Otherwise, abolish it and change the rules of the senate to require a supermajority of 60% of present legislators for a bill or a nomination to pass.

And, as Matt notes, the problem has gotten progressively worse since the Republicans took over the minority status.

Perhaps that only means that Democrats are introducing more objectionable legislation. Perhaps not, but I wouldn't use the graph to automatically draw the conclusion of Republican abuse.

The NFL Challenge-style option is relatively novel but actually strikes me as a good solution.

Novel, yes. Good, not so much. As YAJ says,

The idea of a a number of "free" filibusters is interesting, but it is likely to be gamed. For example, bring up bills to provoke filibusters, then steamroll legislation for later.

If one side--EITHER side--started pushing through bad bill after bad bill, there would be no way to stop it.

Apropos the recent return of debate over the filibuster, I’ll just point you to the Signifying Nothing archives for my proposed reform thereof: What I’d do: tweak the Senate rules slightly, to require 2/5+1 to vote to continue debate upon a call fo...

Funny, but I don't remember Drum bitching about how the filibuster was slowing things down when the Democrats were in the minority. I guess that, maybe, he cared a little bit less back then.

As for the theory that the filibuster is being overly used these days, I believe that this can be tied to the diminishing number of conservative Democrats and/or liberal Republicans in the Senate. If everyone in each party walk in lockstep, you have no incentive to reach out to people of differing ideology, which means that the minority party has no recourse except the filibuster. Frankly, despite opposing its use to stop judicial nominations, I completely support the ability to filibuster, regardless of who is in charge. That some cannot, I believe, does not speak well of what actually motivates them.

Where in the blink was their objection to filibuster when they were the vast minority? Seems to me there just objecting to tools when they became useful to the party opposite.

I personally think that bringing back real filibusters is the correct solution, and repubs should go for it since it's a hell of a way to slow down the machinery of government.

Removing the ability to filibuster from the minority party will essentially take away any power they have to influence legislation.

The only changes I would like to see to the rules are to prohibit filibusters of nominations and to make senators actually filibuster. Requiring them to be present and to do the filibuster the old fashioned way would I think be just as likely to make them pick battles wisely than to remove the ability entirely and remove their ability to influence legislation.

Even more, I would suggest sunset laws that based on the number of positive votes sets the maximum number of years for the legislation lapses and has to be re-voted.

OT - heard Bill Clinton give a speech today. He is bright, articulate, able to think on his feet, full of wonky statistics, and very full of himself with just a bit of a selective memory. He did give an excellent defense of the stimulus package, albeit one I don't share since I differ with him on certain fundamental assumptions. Nonetheless, it is easy to see why he was so popular.