I'd like to see an end to the Filibuster. It is not being used as it was originally intended. Both parties have used the very undemocratic tool whenever it was convenient. I think a presidential signature and majority vote in two separate bodies, subject to judicial review, is all the check and balance we need. Effectively placing the minority in control of the Senate is no way to govern.
In the recent past the Republicans have threatened the "constitutional option" (aka "nuclear option") when Democrats threatened to Filibuster SC appointments. Tell me please, why should a president need to get 60 votes to approve an appointment when the constitution makes no mention of such a super majority?
Until the early 1980's, senators had to continuously speak from the Senate floor in order to maintain the Filibuster. Consequently, they were rare and usually ony applied to matters in which members held deep philosophical convictions. Then, the rules were changed such that one need only prove it had 41+/= votes to prevent a vote. I don't think going back to this policy is the best approach. Thanks to C-Span, politicians from both sides would be dying to have hours on the floor to themselves.
I also think the ability of individual senators to put a "hold" on legislation (short term) or an appointment (potentially long term) is unconscionable. Apparently, it takes over a year to fill all of the administration's appointed positions (3,000 +/-) as various senators will hold up the show in an effort to gain concessions on pet legislation and/or personnel. Really, it is just as corrupt as the earmark system.
Perhaps this question will pull our M Law grad out of his undisclosed location: Would a constitutional challenge to the "hold" and Filibuster systems prevail? The consititution calls for each body to make it own rules, but is this discretion unlimited? Shouldn't a constitutional amendment be required for anything that would require a super majority vote?