Blowing up the Filibuster

Nathan Newman, Sam Rosenfeld, and Brad Plumer are of course correct–the filibuster rule in the Senate has been one of the most potent weapons that American reactionaries have had, and it would be in the interests of progressives to get rid of it even if it meant short-term policy losses. (Of course, it will only be feasible to get rid of the rule when Republicans are in control of the Senate and White House; conservatives will need immediate benefits to be persuaded to get rid of a rule that will hurt their interests in the long run.)

One caveat, however, is that there’s no particular reason for Democrats to support a rule change on the filibuster that applies only to judicial nominees. The attempt by the GOP to make constitutional distinctions between nominations and the other functions of the Senate is farcical–if anything, there are more compelling justifications for the filibuster when it comes to lifetime appointments to the federal courts–and changing the rule for one issue is not likely to be durable. I would support getting rid of the filibuster altogether at the price of more neo-Confederate cranks making it on to the federal bench, but I don’t support a one-issue-only removal of filibuster rules. There’s no reason to take the short-term hit if we don’t get the full benefit.