Should the filibuster be ended?

One major difference between the way the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives conducts their business is the existence of the Senate filibuster. In short, there is unlimited debate in the Senate, providing a minority of senators the opportunity to forestall the passage of legislation they oppose. The filibuster became a tool that opponents of the civil rights legislation in the 1960's used to slow down legislation that would have expanded voting rights, particularly in the South. In fact, Strom Thurmond unsuccessfully fought such a law when he filibustered for 24 hours. In more recent years, the filibuster has been used not only to grind the legislative process to a crawl but, to also prevent a president's nominees for judgeships and executive department positions to be confirmed. Democrats in the early part of this decade filibustered several of President Bush's choices for federal judgeships. With the Democrats regaining control of the Senate, Republicans have returned the favor in record numbers of filibusters against President Obama and his choices for judgeships and other administrative positions.

A cloture motion is need to end a filibuster. Cloture is successful when 60 senators vote to end debate. With the use of the filibuster on the rise, it has raised, the minds of some, concerns that the Senate has become inefficient and unable to conduct business in a timely fashion. The idea that the legislative process operates upon the principle of majority rule has been been replaced by the notion that nothing gets done in the Senate without a supermajority of 60 votes. With Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, effectively giving the GOP a veto over any Democratic legislative proposals even if they have substantial support. And, if and when, the tables are turned, the Democrats are likely to return the favor. As a result, there have been calls for reforming the filibuster, with some even suggesting it be eliminated. Should it be eliminated? Or is there some reform that can retain it as a useful tool without derailing the legislative process?

(Here are some links that you may find useful):

Debatepedia
Tom Harkin Interview
History of the Filibuster
Newsweek Article
Cloture Motions in the 111th Congress

One year later assessing Obama

"Will the public conclude that his policies worked, however much they may cost and however much they may entail more government intervention in the economy? Or will they regard his agenda as intrusive and ineffective big government? What steps may Obama take to alleviate public discontent over these first-year decisions?"

Read this article from the Washington Post and provide your assessment of President Obama's first year in office.