Time to Finish the Filibuster?

With Democrats on the verge of losing their supermajority in the Senate, the notion that the filibuster should be axed is once again making headlines.  (Note: I refuse to call this the "nuclear option," as it's often referred to, and exacerbate such hyperbole.)  In effect, it would allow Democrats to pass the health care bill with a simple majority rather than the 60% currently required.  The filibuster, to be sure, is not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but rather within the rules of the Senate.  In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that a simple majority would be sufficient to change the Senate rules, allowing the Democratic majority to scrap the filibuster altogether.

It's also important to note that the filibuster (and the cloture rule that allows for it to be nixed by 3/5ths of the Senate) has not been consistent throughout the Senate's history.  And while historically it's been used as a last resort, its use has grown exponentially in recent years, especially by the Republican minority.

Admittedly, the exact number of filibusters is hard to measure (or else I'd have a pretty little graphic here).  They are often threatened or executed between party leaders, and cloture votes - perhaps the most often and erroneously cited measures of filibusters - are often used solely to speed up debate.  But unless Republicans want to try to teach political science on the Sunday morning shows, the Democrats can cry foul.

Senate Democrats, if they want to take it, have an opportunity to seize on the "Republican obstructionism" soundbite and eliminate the filibuster.  Two arguments have thus far prevented such a move:

Senate Tradition and Comity
The U.S. Senate has prided itself on being the more collegial, tempered body of Congress, allowing for thoughtful discussion from both sides of the aisle.  Revoking the ability to filibuster could shake this foundation, but with party-line votes, breakdowns in decorum, and previous Republican threats to end the filibuster,  it appears that the Senate is already moving in that direction.

Public Outcry
Ending the right of Senators to filibuster, the argument goes, will enrage a public that already believes the Democratic majority is pushing through legislation without broad consensus.  But if the previous Republican threat to remove the filibuster is any indication, the public doesn't know enough about the intricacies of the Senate rules - and the effect that changing them can have on the will of the minority - to truly get up in arms about such a change.  And the Democrats can easily counter with the "we had to" claim by noting how often Republicans have recently resorted to obstructionist tactics.

The merits of the health care bill and of thwarting the minority will aside (I'm a skeptic in both regards), the Democrats need this win.  The president has staked much of his reputation on it, and tabling health care reform may exacerbate already gloomy predictions for Democratic congressional races later this year.  Democrats may finally have to play hardball like their opponents across the aisle.