[supercat]

IMO, this is a lot like the question of removing the filibuster on SC confirmations: it's attractive to a lot of conservatives in the short run, but once we start down such roads IMO a lot of people here may be very unhappy over where they eventually take us.

If refraining from certain types of unscrupulous maneuvers would mean liberals would likewise do so, then it would be virtuous to do so. But to allow liberals to exercise them without reprisal is to encourage them. The only effective deterrence in such cases is fear of retaliation.

Suppose the U.S. were to declare that it would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Would such a declaration make it more or less likely that nukes would get used?

[The Red Zone]

I wouldn't call what Delay has done, unscrupulous. Congress is saying, "so you say she's a veggie, well bring her down here in a produce basket so we can see for ourselves."

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"If refraining from certain types of unscrupulous maneuvers would mean liberals would likewise do so, then it would be virtuous to do so. But to allow liberals to exercise them without reprisal is to encourage them. The only effective deterrence in such cases is fear of retaliation."

If we define the use of a filibuster by a minority to put a break on the desires of a majority as an” unscrupulous maneuver”, we have to be prepared for the other side to do the same if it returns to power,

Historically in the US the filibuster has been a “conservative” political influence – it increase the power of the smaller, less densely populated and rural states to resist changes favored by larger, more densely populated, and more urban states, Which is to say, roughly, it increases the power of voters in “Red” states at the expense of “Blue” states.

Thus it appears to me that if history is any guide weakening the filibuster for short-term “tactical” advantage is a dangerous strategy longer term for conservatives favoring “smaller government” and “a greater role of the states”.