Filibuster reform harms the political process

This letter is in response to Ronald Dixon’s Dec. 3 column, “More Filibuster Reform Needed.”

Upon hearing of the Democrat-controlled Senate’s elimination of the filibuster, I was caught in a state of disbelief.

Dissenting senators used the filibuster to ensure that the minority’s opinion could be heard. Why would we allow this protection to be eliminated? 

Now, the filibuster has a reputation of slowing down government efficiency, but that is the whole reason for the filibuster’s existence. It is meant to slow down the legislative process to help prevent poor and hasty decisions.

Both Democrats and Republicans have used the filibuster in the past, so why the sudden change in government processes? Apparently it’s acceptable to allow Senate Democrats who no longer hold a supermajority to change the rules to accommodate their desires and oppress the opinions of the minority Republican Party.

By allowing for a simple majority in nominee appointments, Sen. Harry Reid and the other Senate Democrats have opened the door for mob rule through schoolyard bully tactics. The old system required a supermajority (60 votes) to cut off debate on appointments, which often required nominees to obtain bipartisan support.

I did not realize having more people agreeing to matters affecting all Americans was such a bad thing. I would prefer a nominee to have the confidence of more than merely 51 percent of the Senate, as that person will be serving 100 percent of their constituents.

The elimination of the filibuster not only ends a historic Senate tradition, but it effectively dismisses the minority’s opinions and ability to keep the majority in check. Most importantly, it destroys a tool necessary in providing all Americans an equal voice, not just those in the majority.