|
|
|
|
|
|
by slurry
3357 days ago
|
|
|
It was 3/5, not 2/3, to break a filibuster, and the use of filibusters had been getting to unprecedented levels. The argument above was that constitutional change should be hard I.e. require a supermajority. The Senate rules as followed recently have been requiring a supermajority for ANY change. That is unhealthy. |
|
|
It still is. Filibusters have been banned only for confirmations of appointments by the President.