A number of smart people have brought up a point I should address in arguing that NR’s editorial stance (which I share) really is inconsistent: Back in December, NR argued that the filibuster of judges was compatible with (though not required by) the Constitution. Now NR is arguing for a rules change that is premised on the filibuster being unconstitutional. So there’s an inconsistency, right?
I don’t think so, because I don’t think the premise is true. We’re not talking about a point of constitutional order being raised, and I’ve been given to understand by multiple experts on the Senate rules that no senator who votes for the rules change has to do so on the basis that he thinks it is unconstitutional (even if many of them will vote for it on that to-my-mind-flawed basis).