It’s not my approach. My approach is the same as BrainGlutton’s. The best solution is no Senate at all. I’m just pointing out the realities of the filibuster. Historically it hasn’t happened because the active filibuster has given way to the procedural filibuster for the reasons I’ve laid out. Making people talk and talk serves no purpose. The Minority can easily go on indefinitely but the Majority cannot since nearly all of their Senators need to remain present. And the Majority can’t conduct other business while the futile exercise goes on. You have it backwards. It is the Majority that has to set everything aside in the cause of forcing the Minority to actively filibuster. That’s why it doesn’t happen outside of the occasional publicity stunt.
I’m not saying that there are no sensible solutions. Just that none of them include allowing the active filibuster.
“Particularly incompetent right-wing judicial appointments” like Miguel Estrada? Who received a unanimous “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association and enjoyed the support of the majority of the Senate?
Or Priscilla Owen, who was also rated “Well Qualified” by the ABA and also enjoyed the support of the majority of the Senate? Or Carolyn Kuhl, who was also rated “Well Qualified” by the ABA? Or David McKee, who was filibustered not because of his qualifications, but because Sens. Levin and Stabenow were going to filibuster any Bush nominees from Michigan until Bush re-nominated two former Clinton nominees (and after the Gang of 14 compromise, he was confirmed by the full Senate 96-0).
And the GOP filibustered all “liberal” judges, like Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor?
If the test for “obstructionism” boils down to whether it was Democrats or Republicans doing it, then that’s not a fair test.