The Dems would have kept the filibuster in place for SCOTUS if they only had a small majority or 50-50 in the Senate and a Rep in the WH. They would not change the rules, i.e., the Reid option.
Now, that's me taking a longer term view of Senate practice. I have no problem if the GOP spins this up to be the biggest, most monumental thing the GOP has ever done. And I don't mean to imply that success here is no big deal, because the alternative was failure, and that failure would have been a disaster for Trump, for the GOP, and in the long run, for the country.
It brings up the issue of abolishing the filibuster period for all legislation. The cloture rules were set up as a way to prevent a traditional filibuster along the lines of a Mr. Smith goes to Washington. There are fewer and fewer senators willing to stand in the well of the Senate for days conducting a real filibuster. It may be time to abolish the filibuster and let the majority rule as the consequence of the election results. It increases accountability and eliminates the Senate as the place where legislation goes to die.
Good faith use of cloture is to allow a point a view to be heard - to persuade those who perhaps have not made up their mind, or who might be persuaded to change sides. The use of cloture for a body that has made up its mind it abuse of the rule, it creates a minority veto in practice, or a supermajority for passage if you prefer to view things that way.
The senate did fine for the 100 years from 1800 to 1900, more or less, without a cloture rule. Good faith disagreement and majority decision. Then some Senators began to abuse the "unlimited debate," so there came a need to have a way to limit debate. Cloture exists in Robert's Rules of Order - it's not some "senate invention." The point of cloture is to allow dissenting voices the opportunity to be heard, and to allow the body to say "we've heard enough, time to vote."
Individual senators like cloture because it gives them an inordinate amount of power. The Senate is massively dysfunctional, as a deliberative body.
I agree. Hopefully the lesson of the last 15 years of cloture abuse won't be lost on the GOP.
Unlimited debate subject to supermajority cloture made sense when the Senators were ambassadors to Washington appointed by State governments.
It would destabilize the Union to allow 25 States to legislate in a manner repugnant to 23 States.
And, tell the truth - if a Senator is simply a super-congressman, and the Senate functions under the same rules as the House, why not abolish it?
We actually NEED a Council of States to wield control over things that the permanent government at Washington comes up with. But today’s Senate isn’t it.