Smokin' Joe wrote:
"While we may not agree on the source of the situation, I agree the filibuster should not be discarded. If the GOP keeps up its perfidy the Conservatives left in Congress will need the filibuster to have any impact at all."
Nope.
The Constitution specifies those few instances in which a supermajority is required (rather than 50% + 1).
The filibuster rule in the Senate IS NOT one of them.
It's not only a violation of the spirit of the Constitution -- majority rule under the rule of law -- but of the letter of that document, as well.
GET RID OF IT.
I can live with the consequences.
IF the Pubbies end the filibuster rule, they will survive to control the Senate for another decade, at least.
IF they refuse to do it, they may not survive past 2020...
I understand the calculation you're making, but is it realistic, given Bannon's hysterics about primarying GOP Senate incumbants across the board with Breitbart extremists? I think Bannon and his divisive ilk are imperiling the Senate majority, and for that reason I'm reluctant to end the filibuster, given that we may soon be needing it. If we had solidarity then, yeah, sure, junk the thing and let's get to work. But solidarity is a dirty word among Republicans these days - it's faction against faction.
This gets back to the thread topic - conservatives demanding the ouster of FELLOW REPUBLICANS they deem too "moderate". I think we need to face squarely what's at stake in 2018. We are on the precipice of an historic conservative victory, a true transformation of the federal judiciary. It's not just Gorsuch, who many conservatives consider Trump's greatest triumph. Trump has nominated 60 brilliant conservative minds, Constitutional textualists all, to the federal bench. He has another 160 vacancies to fill. And the Dems, back in 2013, foolishly ended the filibuster for judicial nominees - foolish because something happened that in their arrogance and hubris they never expected - a Republican took back the White House.
Trump hasn't made judicial appointments like Bush did. Bush tended to nominate safe choices, choices with little baggage who could survive the threat of a Democratic veto in the Senate. Trump has been freed by the end of the judicial filibuster to appoint true conservatives, conservatives that can be confirmed and shape the course of jurisprudence for the next 40 years. And right by his side, btw, in getting these conservative minds confirmed and on the bench, is Mitch McConnell. Let's not forget how important McConnell is to this project.
This has the potential to be Trump's and McConnell's greatest legacy to the cause of conservatism. It's a wonderful thing to contemplate - if we don't blow it and lose the Senate. But it's a cautionary tale as well - the Dems sure as hell didn't think they'd be in this pickle when they ended the judicial filibuster. They thought they'd be in charge forever, just as you do, Smokin' Joe. They thought they could blow off the minority and stack the courts with judicial progressives. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and the opportunity is ours.
That is - if we don't self-destruct, if we don't overreach, if we don't fall victim to the same hubris.