I don’t understand why you don’t understand it, Jonah. NR had argued that a formal rules change was unnecessary to get conservatives confirmed to the courts. That was why NR judged the campaign for a formal rules change to be a mistake: a prudential judgment. It’s in the nature of those judgments to change as circumstances do. The way the debate has unfolded over the last few months means that it is now much less likely that conservative judges could be confirmed without the rules change. Anyway: what’s inconsistent about suggesting that it may have been wrong to go down a particular road but that now that we have, we ought to go forward?

Andrew: If “the more checks and balances the better” is your watchword, why stop at a 60-vote requirement? Why not make it 100 votes?