“My view on politics in Connecticut right now is we’re at war,” Republican State Sen. Rob Sampson said in a recent interview. “We’ve been operating as if it’s peacetime for too long as Connecticut Republicans.”

As Senate President Pro Tem and Senate Majority Leader, we take no joy to inform readers that one of the Connecticut General Assembly’s most time-honored traditions is under attack in this era of ugly and contentious politics. We refer to the longstanding convention of entertaining unlimited debate.

Some residents may be surprised to learn that the majority party in our state legislature has traditionally and voluntarily committed to an open exchange of ideas for as long as its senators and representatives wish to. Long after the Republican Party began to assault the very foundation of our federal institutions, we have let flexibility and the spirit of good faith debate guide us in the State Senate.

At times, this tradition has resulted in marathon debates that have tested the patience of our members. Anyone who has served in the state Senate has likely watched the early morning sun filter through the chamber’s ornate stained-glass windows after a long night spent arguing over the asserted merits or flaws of a particularly contentious bill or amendment.

It is important to note that Connecticut is not typical in observing this custom. In 2009, the non-partisan Office of Legislative Research reported that only 15 state legislatures did not prospectively set limits on debate to effectively expedite the flow of the legislative calendar.

Here in Connecticut, we have chosen not to utilize tools to curtail debate — though those tools certainly do exist. We have maintained this practice both as a professional courtesy to our colleagues and as a reflection of our desire to ensure that the voices of Connecticut residents represented by the minority party are included in our deliberative process.

It has become difficult, however, to continue extending that courtesy to members of a reduced Republican minority when certain members have not only abused that accommodation but boasted about that abuse in the media.

Last Monday, Sen, Sampson claimed to be “humble” as he told reporter Mike Cerulli that he wielded “tremendous power” over the legislature as it nears the end of its session. The claim was based on Senator Sampson’s presumed capacity to abuse the tradition of unlimited debate in order to defeat Democratic priorities simply by talking until the State Senate ran out of time at midnight on the constitutionally mandated final day of the legislative session. “In many ways, I decide what lives and dies. I really do,” Sampson reportedly said.

While we endeavor to ensure that minority party voters’ voices are heard, Senator Sampson, like all state senators, represents approximately 100,000 Connecticut residents. It is difficult to understand why one senator should be permitted to decide “what lives and dies” for the entire state. Such an unbalanced approach defies the spirit of representative democracy.

It is worth noting that voters have seen fit to expand the General Assembly’s Democratic majorities in each of the last four election cycles. The people of Connecticut have voiced their desire for Democratic programs and policies, and we must honor that trust.

While we remain reluctant to abandon our longstanding commitment to forbearance and accommodation, the senator’s own words demonstrate a hostility to the spirit of cooperation and restraint that underpins such patience. Time will tell if the minority party wants this tradition to live or die.

Martin Looney is President Pro Tempore and Bob Duff is Majority Leader of the Connecticut State Senate.