SoylentNews

In that interview he said he was in favor of returning to the talking filibuster where they would be forced to actually get up and speak to hold the floor (like we see on TV) instead of just sending an email (which is how it actually works now).

If indeed that is all that is required now (sending an email) then I would very much be in favor of returning to the rules of "one must talk to maintain the floor" that requires them to actually do more than send an email.

The filibuster is a useful tool for preventing the wishes of the minority (in a majority wins voting system) from being continuously ignored and/or trampled by the majority. [1] Without something like a filibuster being available, the majority group can simply vote for whatever they want, without even listening to or consulting the minority group, simply because they have 50+1 votes by virtue of being in the majority at that time. The threat of the minority being able to filibuster serves as a check on the power of the majority to just "vote for whatever they want", without consideration of or concession to the inputs from the minority. And much of our system of government was deliberately setup to try to force compromise, not simply allow whomever has 50+1 votes (or the equivalent in the House) to do whatever they want whenever they want with impunity.

But, for the same reasons as above, the filibuster also needs to be a very difficult weapon for the minority to utilize, to serve as a check against the minority simply using it against everything simply for the purpose of clogging up the system. Which is why the requirement to be standing at the lectern, constantly talking, needs to be part of the requirement for wielding the filibuster against the majority. The minority must really feel like they have no other option before they decide to un-crate and fire a filibuster into the chambers.

Now, like any tool, can the filibuster be mis-used? Yes, indeed it can. But before one runs off like F... yelling "off with its head" in regards to the filibuster, one must carefully consider if the value gained by proper use of the filibuster outweighs the loss from the occasional mis-use. All in all I'd say that the value gained by serving as a check against "majority wins, every time, so sorry suckers" is more valuable than the loss from the occasional mis-use (provided the 'rule' is "must be standing at the lectern and talking" to filibuster).

[1] Do note that I carefully worded the above to deliberately leave out the R and D labels, as whichever label is majority vs. minority flip flops periodically, and the discussion above is not related to whichever label holds the majority position vs minority position at any given time.