Does anyone here think that working to stop GOP from destroying the filibuster in 2005 was still a good idea?
Wasn't that a mistake? Shouldn't we have helped them instead?
Taking the bait: OK, fine, I'll bit at BTD's latest diatribe against me:
Chris Bowers asks "Does anyone here think that working to stop GOP from destroying the filibuster in 2005 was still a good idea?"
The first problem with this question is that the GOP did not try to destroy the filibuster - they tried to destroy the judicial filibuster, arguing that it violated the Constitution. They would not have touched the legislative filibuster.
Point! Which many have noted in the comments.
The second problem with this question is Bowers not imagining what a GOP President and GOP Congress would have achieved with the elimination of the filibuster. You thought the actual Bush tax cuts were bad? They would be TWICE as bad without the filibuster.
Um, no. Both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts under Bush were passed using budget reconciliation, not under normal order. In 2001, the final vote was 58-33. In 2003, the vote was 51-50, with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking.
Given that both of his major tax packages had 51 votes, hard to see how they would have been twice as bad if they only needed 51 votes.
Conservatives can get tax cuts through budget reconciliation without the filibuster. They can gut regulations by appointing regulators who refuse to enforce the regulations. Further, Dems didn't block any significant number of judges after the Gang of 14 compromise. They didn't even come close to stopping Alito or Roberts.
If the 60-vote threshold is done away with, there will undoubtedly be conservative legislation and nominations that will pass the Senate which otherwise would not have passed. But, that's democracy. And, on balance I do believe progressives will get the better end of the bargain.