Charles Krauthammer isn’t worried about the abolition of the filibuster, but he does argue that there is a long-term problem with how the Senate sets its rules:
I find it hard to join in the lamentations for the filibuster. First of all, it has been completely abused, not just on judicial appointments but for the last 30 or 40 years. Historically for the 200 years before that, it was rarely used, and its most important historical association is with southern segregationists who used it for generations as a way to deny African Americans their rights. So it’s not exactly the most lovable of all functions. It’s been overused. We are now returning, as a result of this, to a time — when you and I were growing up, we never thought that any piece of legislation had to have a two-thirds majority, as it was at the time in the Senate, we just assumed it would need a simple majority, except in extraordinary cases — so we are returning to that. The only objection I have to the abolition of the filibuster is the way in which it was done. It was done by a simple majority, and that is the issue here. It’s not the abolition of the filibuster, it’s the fact that you can change a fundamental rule by a simple maturity, which means that any morning, any majority at any time can change the rules of the Senate, which means the Senate has no rules. The Democrats and Republicans are going to have to agree at some point that they are going to have to have a super majority to change the rules in the Senate. Otherwise it is lawless; it is like Libya.
Comments