Not intended to be combative, but can you link something that references 300+ Obama appointments. With that said, I agree the R's were not willing to consent to the appointees being presented, but I am not willing to call it obstruction the way Obama labeled it. Obama's appointees were politically motivated in the 2nd most powerful circuit court of appeals in the country, that btw had the lowest volume of appeals out of any of the circuit appeals courts. The workload of the courts was not the issue. The issue was Obama was going to take an evenly divided court and make it 7-4.
Filibuster at its core is to force compromise. Ending the filibuster was wrong, and in my view, it put in motion a culture within congress that refuses to compromise. If Obama had put forth more moderate appointees, then there would not have been a need for the filibuster. I think it was wrong for the R's to block Garland, but it was in response to the nuclear option put in place by the democrat senators under Harry Reid.
I am personally against the most recent Gun Safety Bill that was signed into law, but I love that it received more than 60 votes in the senate. It is what happens when both parties compromise. Filibuster being returned would lead to more moderate judges being appointed in the Judicial System.
Our Legislative Branch would be an even bigger disaster if they completely remove filibuster, which some senators want to do. We can not let our Senate become a circus, which will happen if they end filibuster.
