COTW: Why the Filibuster Rule Must Go and More

So Joe has already come out against changing the filibuster rule in the Senate and increasing the number of jurists on the Supreme Court. Pardon me, Joe but both of those items need to be accomplished in a possible Democratically run government. Divided government for over two decades has been a rolling disaster for this country. If the Democrats are lucky enough to pull off a sweep of the White House and Congress, they need to impose their will on a truculent minority that has successfully blocked all progressive legislation since the Affordable Care Act. The key to this blockade has been the Senate filibuster rule. Look at the chart:

Without doubt the Affordable Care Act, already ruled unconstitutional in the conservative 5th Circuit, and the Supreme Court abortion decision in Roe v. Wade will be atop the target list of a Court tilted hard right for a generation or more, when Senate Repugnants ram through a nomination and confirmation before the end of the year. Because no one was able to convince careerist Ruth Ginsberg to retire while a Democratic president could appoint her successor, Democrats must consider how to counteract a very conservative Court that will be stumbling block to progressive legislation, just as a conservative Court was to FDR's New Deal programs in 1937. Repugnant's are not playing nice guys any longer because they see a demographic sea change arriving that could relegate them to the historical trash bin. Biden's weak appeals to civility and comity are therefore falling on deaf ears.

All the stops are out, so even institutionalists like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has said everything is on the table. There is progressive support in the Senate for modifying or even eliminating the filibuster. And with a possible lame-duck Supreme Court appointment staring Democrats down, increasing the number of justices to achieve a more politically balanced Court is worth discussing.  It is obvious that the Supreme Court is the least democratic institution in our civilian federal government.  So Congress should not stop with considering more justices, but also imposing a limit on their tenure.  Life-time judicial appointments are a relic of history, not a constitutionally imposed mandate.  See Article III.

Here is something to think about: Repugnant state senators have boycotted the Oregon legislature twice to prevent consideration of a carbon tax bill supported by the Democratic majority.  Unethical behavior, you say?  What about the previous public pledges by US Senators not to confirm a justice during an election year?  Moscow Mitch held up an Obama nomination for eight months, claiming it was too close to an election! Is that ethical behavior?  US Person does not think so.  It is time for Democrats to stand up for the democratic principles this country is supposedly founded upon.