Filibusters are acts such as prolonged speech (for example, reading a phone book or reciting Shakespeare on the Senate floor for 24 hours straight!) with the goal to delay or block legislative action (such as preventing a vote on a bill or a presidential nominee). Some argue that filibuster is an essential parliamentary procedure that allows for extensive debate on (especially controversial) legislative bills, keeps the majority party's power in check, and has long motivated presidents to nominate candidates who are highly qualified and closer to the center for key positions such as for the Supreme Court. Others oppose filibusters by suggesting that they cause legislative paralysis, inefficiency, polarization, and have prevented diverse and unconventional nominees to be appointed.
Where do you stand?
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of filibusters (preferably with historical examples).
Do you think they are beneficial or harmful to the legislative process? Elaborate.