As time has gone on, the public has tired of politicians that do not do what they have promised, and filibustering is part of that. Those who agree with filibustering feel that it is an important way for politicians to block bills they are very concerned about or that they believe would be seriously harmful to the public. There is no argument that protecting the public is what politicians really should be doing, but the problem lies in the opinion of the politicians and whether they are actually doing what is right for the public, or what they think is right for the public. In other words, how is their level of objectivity when it comes to the bills they filibuster? Are they really deeply concerned about the public, or are they only focused on the level of control they have and what they think is correct? Those are questions that are very important to consider, and they are the same kinds of questions that are asked by those who do not believe filibustering is a good idea. The idea behind a filibuster is to prevent the passage of bad legislation, but it also prevents "good" legislation from getting through if even one politician has a very strong opinion and stance against it (Binder & Smith, 1996). Because that is the case, there is a serious lack of checks and balances used when filibustering is allowed. Stopping politicians from having the right to filibuster may allow some legislation to get through that some politicians do not like, but it would also keep the process of passing bills and making laws moving forward, which allows society and its laws to grow and develop.

In short, a filibuster comes out of the desire...

Unfortunately, that desire to stop a piece of legislation is based solely on the opinion of that politician. He or she can listen to the people in the district or area he or she serves, but that does not guarantee the politician will follow the opinions or desires of those people. Instead, the politician may decide there is a better way, or that the people he or she serves are "misguided" in the sense that they do not have a complete understanding of the piece of legislation. If that is the opinion of the politician, there is a higher likelihood of a filibuster. At some point, other politicians can work to stop a filibuster, but that takes floor time (Koger, 2010). A politician who is working to filibuster something will often switch off to other business when he or she realizes that other politicians are moving to stop the filibuster (Binder & Smith, 1996). This technique usually works, because it takes up enough time to stop a bill from getting through and forces the politicians to move on to something else (Koger, 2010). With that as the central issue, filibustering is effective. However, that does not mean it is a good idea or that is serves the best interests of the public.
References

Binder, Sarah a. & Smith, Steven S. (1996). Politics or Principle: Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Koger, Gregory (2010). Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lazare, Daniel (1996). The Frozen…