As an outsider, this seems like a disingenuous take, but I might be missing something.
Do you think there's any negative effect to allowing a filibuster to occur on things guaranteed to be rejected by the Republicans? Could that time be better spent otherwise? If so, doesn't this imply that it's a soft limitation (sure they could put up a lame duck bill I guess).
I think your parent’s take is that the filibuster only affects floor votes, but all of the stages of bill making before that are unaffected by the filibuster.
The Filibuster has been replaced by the Cloture Vote as the heckler’s veto of Congress. It is quiet/anonymous, can be done by staffers (not just Congresspersons), and can be done remotely. Hence this is a stronger heckler’s veto today than in the past.
And it _is_ disingenuous because Republicans have the Hastert Rule, which is even more restrictive on what can come to a floor vote than what Democrats do.
Do you think there's any negative effect to allowing a filibuster to occur on things guaranteed to be rejected by the Republicans? Could that time be better spent otherwise? If so, doesn't this imply that it's a soft limitation (sure they could put up a lame duck bill I guess).
reply