[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”.

[supercat]

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.

Right now, the use of filibusters on judicial appointments is a weapon that is only used to block conservative nominees. If we get a Democrat in the White House, that would likely continue to be the case. Given that Republicans are never going to use that weapon, why shouldn't they abolish it?