That’s the title of my new Confirmation Tales post in which I present the ground-level insights of a Senate staffer, Steven Duffield, who worked intensively against the Democratic filibuster of Miguel Estrada’s D.C. Circuit nomination. Duffield explains how the Democrats’ decision to filibuster the Estrada nomination “was a major inflection point, both in the confirmation wars and in the history of the Senate more broadly”:

The animosity and the frustration with a party-wide assault on comity and cooperation have certainly migrated into other areas, with a tit-for-tat environment that has made the Senate far weaker as an institution than it was or than it should be. People might hate the “club” culture of the old Senate, but is this better?
It is deeply regrettable that a handful of activists were able to persuade the filibustering senators that it was better to unravel the Senate’s messy but still-effective ecosystem than to do the hard work of persuading their Republican colleagues to oppose the nominees on the merits. We have a far less productive Senate today because of those judgment errors in 2003.

I’m eager to present inside perspectives from other participants in the process, and I’d especially welcome the opportunity to hear from Democratic staffers in the White House or Senate, so if you have a story to tell or a lesson to offer (subject to whatever confidentiality conditions you prefer), please contact me at [email protected].

I invite you to sign up for Confirmation Tales.