Judging the Senate

In frustration, it can sometimes be easy to lose sight of the long-term picture. I think this is what is currently happening with the Senate leadership, with the thought of removing the filibuster option for judicial nominees.

It's important to recognize that just as the current system for voting in judges was put in place, it can be removed. The constitution gives the Republican majority the ability to remove the filibuster option if they choose. There may be a small price to pay at the polls for this decision, but I believe it would be negligible. The real price to pay for the conservatives will come when we again have a liberal Senate, President, and so on. At this point, the conservatives will have limited ability to block some of the more extreme judges on the liberal side. Looking down the road, what you would end up with would be more controversial conservative and liberal judges on the bench. Neither of these options are good options with regard to our freedom, as both are more likely to rule in ways that can curtail either our personal or economic liberty.

The filibuster is something that is profoundly frustrating to those behind a blocked action. Overly participating in them can come with its own set of consequences, as the voting public can become dismayed by this process. That said, I think that in general the filibuster, used with discretion, often serves to protect our law books and benches from impertinent actions coming from both sides of the aisle in the name of "progress". As an individual with a leaning toward libertarian concepts, I tend to see this as a good thing. Of course, if my unnamed party were to ever take hold of the senate, maybe I would think otherwise. Perhaps a rule of no filibusters on actions that stand behind individual freedom and economic liberty.