corrente

After doing the usual balance thing on how both Dems and Republicans are to blame for the Republicans wishing to pack the courts, the geniuses on the WaPo board actually come up with a new argument: It's not a good idea to make institutional changes to achieve tactical gains.

Is there more to either side's conversion than a lust for short-term political advantage? There is an honorable way to find out: If compromise proves impossible, the Republicans should propose a reform of Senate rules that would take effect in January 2009.

The debate on the merits and evils of the filibuster could then take place where Republicans and Democrats both say it belongs -- on the level of principle. Democrats could explain why they have lost faith in majority rule. Republicans could explain why majority rule is good sometimes, but not all the time. And both sides would be arguing without knowing who might reap tactical benefit.
(via WaPo)

Nice balloon to float.

But what's this about the Dems having no faith in majority rule? The Senate Dems represent a majority of the country. In fact, the Senate Dems are the only way we have any representation in Washington whatever.

So the Republicans are going to take that into account, right? Some level of basic fairness?

Or will they tell us to get on our knees for extremist judges who want to undo the New Deal in the name of Christ?