> Note that, in some cases, filibustered bills were eventually passed but with substantial concessions to the senators blocking the original bill.
We have clearly seen over the past many decades an evolution in the kinds of bills we pass, and I think it's quite easy to observe that controversial bills are front-loaded specifically to combat this. The negotiations have changed to meet the needs of the new battlefield.
Perhaps this is "naive," of me but the kinds of bills the Senate has passed recently have me surprised its use has only gone up 3x.
I can find no way to read this comment generously.
Your original point was that use of the fillibuster was judicious. The article goes on, at length, about exactly how the use of the fillibuster has only substantially increased over time.
And then here you plucked out a single sentence from the article used as a good-faith caveat before presenting data to say the article "proved your point."
> Note that, in some cases, filibustered bills were eventually passed but with substantial concessions to the senators blocking the original bill.
We have clearly seen over the past many decades an evolution in the kinds of bills we pass, and I think it's quite easy to observe that controversial bills are front-loaded specifically to combat this. The negotiations have changed to meet the needs of the new battlefield.
Perhaps this is "naive," of me but the kinds of bills the Senate has passed recently have me surprised its use has only gone up 3x.