The Filibuster -- Get On With The Bomb

TigerHawk argues in favor of the "nostalgia option" for attacking the filibuster...

For my part, I continue to believe that it is not in the best interests of Republicans to abolish the filibuster -- they will need it themselves some day, and no Supreme Court nominee is worth giving up that protection over the long term. Having said that, I also believe that the reality of a traditional filibuster -- which nobody has seen or experienced in all its harshness for more than 30 years -- would appear through C-SPAN and the blogosphere to be so asinine that the risk of political backlash against the minority would rise rapidly as the days went by. The risk of backlash might not be obvious at the beginning of the debate, just as it wasn't obvious to Newt Gingrich that the Republicans in Congress would take the heat for shutting down the federal government a decade ago, but it would become obvious after just a few days. And even if the traditional filibuster worked to frustrate the first Republican nominee, would Democrats really want to repeat the ordeal for the next nominee? They might look like heroes the first time, and jackasses donkeys the second time.

I originally thought this should have been used in 2003-04, when the GOP had a majority but a slim one in the Senate. There's been plenty of big-blog discussion on this issue, with Instapundit and Patterico weighing in, and Kaus jumping back and forth on this idea.

As for my thoughts...

Look, if the filibuster is such an honored part of democratic tradition, then why do we allow 60 votes to end it? In fact, why not allow one member to gum up the works permanently, if all we're doing is trying to enshrine the rights of the minority to protest? The original filibusters have been watered down; at one point, you needed two-thirds majority to invoke cloture. And if the Dems are so convinced of the sanctity of the filibuster, they'd better complain about how the House of Representatives doesn't have one -- and keep complaining about it if they're ever back in the majority.

The rationale for the filibuster may exist, but it's not clear to me that the filibuster as it's currently being exercised matches up with the principles it supposedly stands for. The theory of the Dems isn't to change anyone's minds by having them re-consider the issue; it's to kill the nomination itself. If you're holding up judicial nominees, is there any reason to end the filibuster? This isn't like legislation, where we can have compromise about the actual terms of the legislation while it's held up by an enterprising minority. The concession the Democrats are demanding is that the President withdraw the nominations of the judges in full -- there is no compromise to be heard on this point.

I am tired of idiot arguments from the left, like the one paraphrased here by Russert...

Court of Appeals: Bill Clinton nominated 51 people to the Court of Appeals. Thirty-five were confirmed. Sixteen were blocked by the Republicans by not giving hearings or not allowed out of committee. George Bush nominated 52. Thirty-five were confirmed because the Democrats threatened filibuster. They don't run the committees, so they can't block it in committee. What's the difference?

There's a huge difference, Tim. The GOP is in the majority in both cases -- so they have the right, as the majority committee, to block nominees in committee by voting against the nominees. The Democrats aren't even allowing a vote. Even if Clinton's nominees had reached the floor, they would, in almost all cases, have been rejected by the GOP majority. If Bush's filibustered nominees reach the floor, they will be confirmed. Again, we have the Democrats fighting the tide of democracy.

And this is the party that wants to count every vote? I guess it's just like every other election -- the Democrats want every vote to count, but only until they find out they're going to lose.