The Huffington Post reports that at least several Democratic senators are talking about the possibility of restoring the filibusterer rule should their party regain control of the Senate. I’d been thinking along the same lines, but would take it a step further-- to have Democratic leadership make a formal pledge to the American people to do this (a sort of mini-”contract with America” à la Newt Gingrich.) Seems contra-intuitive in today’s hyper-partisan environment for a political party to pledge to forgo future power, but I think there are solid reasons to do this:
SENDS A MESSAGE: It sends a message to voters the Democrats can put America’s interests ahead of party politics. If there is one take away from the last election it is voters are sick of how Washington operates. It scares and outrages them a party would periodically threaten to shut down the government or default on US debts, inflicting huge damage, just to get their way. So the Democrats pledging to do the opposite would be refreshing. It also would make the Republican’s power grab look petty.
WHY IT IS NEEDED: Requiring more votes for Supreme Court nominees is clearly in the national interest. The Supreme Court is the apex of the judiciary, one of the three branches of government. Appointments are for life and a nominee will shape national policy for years after the politics of the moment are gone and forgotten. The Supreme Court should act as a brake not an accelerator in defining the course of the nation; that function belongs to the elected executive and legislative branches. In short, courts should be a moderating force, checking government over-reach.This is the ultimate guard against concentration of power within the other two branches; it’s what separates us from banana republics. Therefore a moderate court is in our long-term interest. The filibusterer acts as a moderating influence. Requiring a super-majority tends force working across the isle. Knowing this, Democratic presidents will appoint moderate Democrats and Republicans will appoint moderate Republicans, because someone on the extremes will not be confirmed. It stocks the court with people who can work together, making the types of compromises needed for a stable functioning judicial system.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-discuss-restoring-filibuster_us_58ebdfa3e4b0ca64d91848e4?jvi&