To all of the very worried Democrats and Republicans fretting and rubbing their hands about the possible end of the filibuster: who cares?
The filibuster is a patently anti-democratic parliamentary tactic that should never have existed. The senate is anti-democratic enough to begin with that we don’t need to include all of these bullcrap measures that are about as timely and as fashionable as spittoons and antimacassars.
To liberals on fainting couches: have you reviewed the history of the filibuster? To conservatives huffing and puffing like the Big, Bad Wolf: go ahead and blow the senate down. You won! You get your pick for the Supreme Court! That’s how it works! That’s about all you’re going to get out President Human Stain, so enjoy your new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court–those Trumpstains probably won’t come out of your Federalist Society lab experiment, but I’m sure you’ll live happily with the shame.
The reason Democrats need to refuse the Supreme Court nominee all the votes they possibly can is to show a little muscle and to start fundraising and campaigning for the 2018 midterms. Because that’s the only way that Democrats can box in and defeat the president and the ruling party. They have to win elections, not pray for the Russo-Turkish lackey Mike Flynn to sing a pretty song, or count on corrupt parliamentary maneuvers. The Democrats lost every election of the past eight years except the one of four that had Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.
The filibuster has been an unwanted guest for decades. Banish it and win a couple of elections. It worked in 2006 and then in 2008! It’s so crazy, it just might work again.
Historiann 
Yes! Thank you for saying this. I am sick of the comity of the Senate and all the other nonsense that has been spewed on this topic for years.
LikeLike
It’s an illusion. The Republicans denied Garland a hearing because they could, and now they’ll install Gorsuch because they can.
Elections have consequences, people!
LikeLike
As others have said, we’ve been playing a board game, the Repubs say, “Screw it. Let’s burn the house down.” And the Dems sit there and try to win the board game by the old rules.
I’ve never been able to figure out what part of Not Going To Work they don’t understand.
As for using elections to solve the problem, we may still have that option. We may actually not. Time will tell when hindsight can operate. Between gerrymandering, Crosscheck voter dumping, and Cambridge Analytica-style psychological manipulation, we may already be past the point where voters can get to 50.1%.
After all, even with the concrete shoes they gave her, and all the voter manipulation, Hillary won by nearly 3 million votes. And here we are.
(Signed, Debbie Downer. 😦 )
LikeLike
I would only trade getting rid of the filibuster for getting rid of the Electoral “College.” Let’s make Wyoming back into a county.
LikeLike
Or just divide California into 10 different states! That would net Dems probably +14 senators, I should think.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m afraid that what would happen is the fascists would block that, and then in revenge split Wyoming into 50 states (each with maybe a dozen voters, so they could elect 5 of them to congress.)
LikeLike
Pingback: If One Standard Is Good, Two Must Be Better | From Pine View Farm