more filibuster bluster

After my last post, about the messy fighting (including a filibuster and the nuclear option) that gave us Judge Gorsuch, a friend asked me what I think about the filibuster.

I purposely avoided that question when discussing the SCOTUS fight, because it was irrelevant to the question I was looking at.. The filibuster was a longstanding tradition. Harry Reid eliminated it for all judges except SCOTUS picks. McConnell took it the next step, eliminating filibusters for SCOTUS picks as well. What are we left with? The filibuster for laws and other matters.

I'm into process. I don't like the idea of making changes because it's politically expedient. When Reagan was President, I recall, some Republicans talked about repealing the 22nd Amendment so that he could run for a third term. Same thing when Clinton's second term was winding down. While I don't like 22A, and would like to see it repealed, I only want it repealed if the effective date is some time in the future -- to remove the incentive to repeal it with a specific candidate in mind.

And so it is with filibusters. I didn't like having the filibuster and the nuking thereof be a matter of winning or losing the current battle. If it was to be nuked, I would have preferred that the Senate nuke it, effective eight years from now.

Now, none of that answers the question of how I feel about the ability to filibuster judges.

The short answer is, I don't know. The issue has come up repeatedly, but always with a specific fight in mind. When President Bush was trying to get his nominees on the lower courts, and the Republicans had a majority that wasn't filibuster-proof. Then under President Obama. And now under Trump.

I can recite the arguments for and against the procedure. No problem. But I haven't. That's because the question seems perpetually clouded by one specific issue of expedience, and I know that my thoughts have always been muddied by my feelings about the fight at hand. Unlike, say, the editors of The New York Times, I don't want to present selfish expedience as some kind of high-minded matter of principle.

That said, I can say that there is one area where I want to keep the filibuster: matters of statute. I am in favor of maintaining the ability of the Senate minority to filibuster laws they find objectionable.

The reason? Stability.

If highly controversial laws can be passed by a bare partisan majority, we run the risk of having laws passed, then undone (as soon as the Senate changes hands), the redone (when it changes back). We need to be able to have more confidence in the stability of our laws. Not that I want laws, once passed, to be forever immutable. But there needs to be a bigger swing in popular opinion.