There are two types of cheating in the world: cheating in life and cheating on your wife.
Cheating on your spouse is also known by the name infidelity and is the common cause of divorce is many countries. There are many websites that are devoted to helping people catch their cheating spouses or consoling people after being cheated on.
Cheating in life is a little more complicated. It is a spectrum including things like students cheating on their exams or corporations cheating consumers out of product quality or something like that. Because of the lack of integrity involved in all of these acts of cheating there are sites like the Consumerist designed to protect people from these types of cheaters.
I don’t think there’s much of a case for the filibuster. Super-majorities usually work against progressive causes. In an increasingly corrupt system, increasing the blocking power of minorities makes shakedowns more effective. The Constitutionally-mandated rotten-borough apportionment of the Senate makes giving the senators from the twenty-one smallest states power to block any piece of legislation that much less attractive.
In this regard, I see no case whatever for distinguishing judicial nominations from the rest of the Senate’s business. The Constitution doesn’t distinguish, so if we’re going to get rid of the effective super-majority requirement created by the filibuster, we ought to get rid of it across the board.
Therefore, if the Republicans proposed eliminating the filibuster altogether, I’d be for it, even if the proposal were to take immediate effect. Obviously, I’d be more enthusiastic if the rules change were delayed until one or two more elections had passed. But the long run is more important than the short run, and getting rid of a major mechanism of obstruction would probably be a good deal even if it meant replacing Rehnquist with another Rehnquist. (I’m counting on Justice Stevens to be carried out feet-first rather than let GWB appoint his successor.)
I think the Democrats would have a better logical case arguing against the selective elimination of the filibuster than arguing in favor of the filibuster generically; whether that would be a better political case or not I couldn’t guess.
But it seems to me that the “nuclear option” question isn’t really about the filibuster, or about judicial filibusters, at all. It’s about cheating. The Senate, acting under Constitutional authority, has created rules for itself. Those rules include a provision that changing the rules requires a two-thirds majority. (Requiring a super-majority for rules changes seems to me sound, since otherwise there would be in effect no rules at all that a temporary majority had to respect.)
The “nuclear option” involves the Vice-President, acting as the President of the Senate, making a clearly false decision about what the current rules are; at least, it never occurred to the Democrats to argue that the Abe Fortas filibuster was unconstitutional, and then having his false decision sustained by a simple majority vote. (As the old Yiddish proverb has it, “One lies, and the other swears to it.”)
Again, I don’t claim to be an expert on public opinion, but on general principles I think the Democrats are better off arguing about cheating than they are claiming that the filibuster is a precious heirloom. It was a lousy procedural trick when the Republicans used it to block national health insurance under Truman; it was a lousy procedural trick when the Dixiecrats used it to block anti-lynching and civil rights bills from the ’30s through the ’70s; and it’s a lousy procedural trick today.
But running the Senate by the rules of Calvinball is no way to fix anything. If I were a Democratic politician, I’d just keep saying: “The Republicans in Washington have been lying and stealing for years; now they’re cheating, too.”
The last time I checked, fair play was among the family values.