Filibuster: Obama has created another "straw man crisis," and is using it to transform the Senate into a ruling body that pushes "one party rule" to the destruction of the trustworthiness of the Senate.

According to NBC News,  in 2005,  Senate Republican's considered limiting the filibuster and were fought at every turn,  by the minority Democrats.  The attempt failed.   But,  now that the minority is the majority,  things are different,  of course.  Such is the way of the hypocrite.

The legislative decision being made at the Hapless Harry Reid,   to change the filibuster rules of the Senate,  after nearly 200 years of procedure under the current rules,  is being defended by the phony claim that Obama’s appointments are being blocked by Republicans in the Senate,  at an alarming rate.

Obama's Phony Complaint 

Obama, June 4, 2013:   “Time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay and even block qualified nominees from coming to a full vote. As a result, my judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor. Let me repeat that: My nominees have taken three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor.”

At FactCheck.org,  we learn the truth of the matter,  and it is nothing similar to what Obama pictures above.  Suffice it to say, Obama is using a made up crisis to change Senate rules and "federal appointments" may not be the only reason. 

From the chart below, one can plainly see the final results as to federal appointments is almost identical under Obama,  compared to his predecessors.  

Source: Internal CRS judicial nominations database.

What is a filibuster?  

Understand that the filibuster has been with us from the very beginning.  In the first years,  the Senate was so small that it allowed unlimited filibuster but the rules of filibuster were different,  than now.  A continuous filibuster was unbroken and continuous talk,  with time allowed for bathroom privileges and nothing more.  

In 1917,  the rules were changed,  in the larger Senate,  to a two-thirds vote,  for ending floor discussions on a bill,  after all Senators who wanted to speak,  had had that opportunity.  A "filibuster" is nothing more than a floor discussion that continues without end,  from a single Senator.  It takes 60 votes to end floor discussion,  but only 51 votes to pass a bill into law,  after floor discussion is ended.  It the floor discussion cannot be ended with a 60 total,  the "discussion" becomes a "filibuster."    The rule prevents only party rule,  and insures the voice of the minority party (parties).  

What comes next - the deterioration of the Senate process?

We all know that Obama and his Democrat leadership are all in for one party rule,  but only if they are that "one party."    I say , "Fine."  Let them change the rules,  and when the GOP takes back the Senate,  watch what happens to the Democrat agenda,  if the the likes of McCain and Graham are not GOP leadership.  
________________
See the discussion on the filibuster,  here, at Senate.gov.