The president has just been reelected, and his party has just expanded its majority in the Senate to 55 seats.

However, knowing from precedent that the minority party in the Senate would again obstruct the administration's priorities by the constant use of filibusters, action was taken.
The senate majority leader hatched a plan to reform the filibuster, which was derided by his critics, specifically the minority leader, as a "nuclear option." I am not talking about current events; I'm talking about congress in the year 2005.

In 2005, the Senate Republicans, then the majority party, sought to reform the use of the filibuster, the obstructive tactic used to delay indefinitely the conclusion of a debate on a specific motion.

A filibuster, under current rules, may only be ended through a vote of three-fifths of the Senate (60 members).

Concerned that Senate Democrats would filibuster and kill progress on some of the more ambitious proposals of President Bush's second term, including the privatization of Social Security, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, moved to reform the filibuster to a simple majority vote.

 The filibuster, as a tool of the Senate, has been a great ally for both the Democratic and Republican parties, allowing both to block, water-down or at least delay controversial bills.
Whereas the House of Representatives may pass impulsive legislation with regard to the public's ever-changing mood, the Senate, through the use of a filibuster, is supposed to be a check.

While supporters of filibuster reform would argue that the practice subtracts from the democratic process, the fact is that the Senate is designed to mitigate the effects of the populace, with the filibuster being a necessary tool for that purpose.

Thomas Jefferson famously compared the Senate to a tea saucer, implying it is needed for cooling purposes.

The filibuster did not first arise until 1837, and has been an integral part of our government ever since.

While the fashion thereof has changed over the years, such as the adoption of cloture-that is a motion to end a filibuster-in 1917, and the reduction of the votes needed for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths in 1975, the principle of indefinite delay has persisted.
Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader at the time (and current Senate majority leader) cried foul at the idea, describing it as a "nuclear option," implying that, like a nuclear strike, the demise of the filibuster would incite retaliation.

However, now that Reid is in the same position, the tables have turned. Harry Reid has moved to reform the filibuster by only allowing its use to end debate, rather than to prevent bringing a motion to the floor of the Senate.

Additionally, his proposal would force senators to actually filibuster bills rather than simply use the threat thereof. Essentially, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington style. However, talk still remains of gutting the tradition beyond those means.

In 2005, the conflict was solved after a so-called "Gang of 14," represented by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, emerged to save the filibuster. Senate Democrats would be unwise and ungrateful to not return the favor.

Elections like those in 1992 or 2004 prove that one party, no matter how confident or powerful, could always be only two short years from being in the minority.

The filibuster, it occurs to me, is something that the majority party will perpetually loathe, and the minority party will perpetually love.  

However, most of the specific reforms that Senator Reid is proposing are not all that unreasonable. These include only allowing filibusters to end debate, rather than simply bringing a motion to the floor.

The requirement that filibusters, rather than just the threat thereof, actually occur is perhaps the most important.

In this age of C-SPAN and a constantly televised congress, if a minority party spent days on end holding up all congressional action, public sentiment would surely turn against them.
Egregiously long filibusters of the past featured absurd topics such as reading out of phone books, obstructionist tactics that would not be tolerated today. Therefore, this provision would reform the filibuster's abuse, without ending its true use, as a means of last resort.

As frustrating as delays and obstruction in our government may be, they have been age-old traditions since our origin, helping to ensure the principles of our constitution.

Our founding fathers formulated a convoluted government with checks and balances, rather than the somewhat direct government in the United Kingdom, because they felt democracy was best served when the impulsivity of the people was mitigated.

While some reforms to the filibuster, such as the requirement that they actually occur when threatened, or that they only occur on a motion to end debate, are necessary, the filibuster itself must be preserved, to preserve the checks and balances that make our government so special.
*