Over at TPM DC, Elana Schor mounts a qualified defense for retaining the filibuster. "The Democratic campaign during 2003-05 to block grossly partisan Bush judicial nominees, such as mining industry lawyer William G. Myers, represents the most obvious argument in support of filibustering," she says. She goes on to offer three more examples of worthy filibusters: Chris Dodd's valiant effort to block amnesty for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, six senators who held up reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, and Robert LaFollette's 1919 attempt to block a sell-off of public lands.Laudable goals all, but this sort of ledger-style approach to the filibuster -- blocking Social Security privatization merits a check in the left column, impeding universal health care puts an X on the right side -- is not, I'd argue, the right way to think about the issue. Insofar as eliminating the filibuster is seen as a play for partisan advantage, as it was in 2005 when Republican attacked the rule in an effort to speed judicial confirmations, the conversation will be about the intentions of the majority Congress rather than the problems of the filibuster. And that's the wrong conversation.Rather, I'd argue that the central question is "legitimacy." We have a party-based electoral system that, particularly in the Senate, pushes towards a relatively even division of power. The question then becomes whether we're more comfortable with the consequences of a system where the minority can block good policy or the majority can pass bad policy. I'd prefer the latter: The policies of politicians we voted for have more democratic legitimacy than the system's structural preference for inaction. Elections should be about the bills passed by the majority rather than the obstructions erected by the minority. This might all be different if we'd chosen the filibuster. If, as a nation, we'd ratified gridlock and ineffectual governance. But we didn't. Indeed, the situation might be clarified if we did away with the term "filibuster" altogether. The filibuster is a byproduct of the Senate's right to unlimited debate. The idea was that the Senate would be a body of reasoned deliberation. The rule was meant to promote argument, not require supermajorities. Indeed, it wasn't until Woodrow Wilson that the Senate could even vote down a senator trying to talk a bill to death. They changed the rules because the right to unlimited debate had changed: It had been transformed from a guardian of democratic deliberation into a tool for undemocratic obstruction.So get rid of the filibuster. Now that the filibuster doesn't even require excess speech, it's come completely unmoored from the right to unlimited debate. Instead of some loophole forcing a 60-vote majority, let's simply decide what the Senate should be. If it's to be a 60-vote institution, then make that the number required to pass a bill. If it's meant to be a majority body, then let that vision rule the day. But whatever the decision, it should be legitimate, the product of, well, thoughtful and sustained debate. The sort of deliberative process, ironically, that the filibuster was designed to ensure. DEBATE THE FILIBUSTER. THE FILIBUSTER WOULD WANT IT THAT WAY.
Over at TPM DC, Elana Schor mounts a qualified defense for retaining the filibuster. "The Democratic campaign during 2003-05 to block grossly partisan Bush judicial nominees, such as mining industry lawyer William G. Myers, represents the most obvious argument in support of filibustering," she says. She goes on to offer three more examples of worthy filibusters: Chris Dodd's valiant effort to block amnesty for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, six senators who held up reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, and Robert LaFollette's 1919 attempt to block a sell-off of public lands.Laudable goals all, but this sort of ledger-style approach to the filibuster -- blocking Social Security privatization merits a check in the left column, impeding universal health care puts an X on the right side -- is not, I'd argue, the right way to think about the issue. Insofar as eliminating the filibuster is seen as a play for partisan advantage, as it was in 2005 when Republican attacked the rule in an effort to speed judicial confirmations, the conversation will be about the intentions of the majority Congress rather than the problems of the filibuster. And that's the wrong conversation.Rather, I'd argue that the central question is "legitimacy." We have a party-based electoral system that, particularly in the Senate, pushes towards a relatively even division of power. The question then becomes whether we're more comfortable with the consequences of a system where the minority can block good policy or the majority can pass bad policy. I'd prefer the latter: The policies of politicians we voted for have more democratic legitimacy than the system's structural preference for inaction. Elections should be about the bills passed by the majority rather than the obstructions erected by the minority. This might all be different if we'd chosen the filibuster. If, as a nation, we'd ratified gridlock and ineffectual governance. But we didn't. Indeed, the situation might be clarified if we did away with the term "filibuster" altogether. The filibuster is a byproduct of the Senate's right to unlimited debate. The idea was that the Senate would be a body of reasoned deliberation. The rule was meant to promote argument, not require supermajorities. Indeed, it wasn't until Woodrow Wilson that the Senate could even vote down a senator trying to talk a bill to death. They changed the rules because the right to unlimited debate had changed: It had been transformed from a guardian of democratic deliberation into a tool for undemocratic obstruction.So get rid of the filibuster. Now that the filibuster doesn't even require excess speech, it's come completely unmoored from the right to unlimited debate. Instead of some loophole forcing a 60-vote majority, let's simply decide what the Senate should be. If it's to be a 60-vote institution, then make that the number required to pass a bill. If it's meant to be a majority body, then let that vision rule the day. But whatever the decision, it should be legitimate, the product of, well, thoughtful and sustained debate. The sort of deliberative process, ironically, that the filibuster was designed to ensure. 
