Consider this...
The place: The Senate.
The situation: The minority party using the filibuster law to block the majority party's agenda.
The moral outrage by the majority party: That the use of filibuster is in some way unprecedented, is shutting down government in ways it was never intended to.
The attempt: To use some obscure rule to shut down the filibuster.
The thwarting of the attempt: A small group of moderate members of the majority party refusing to go along with any such shut-downs, rendering the obscure rule usage moot.
The moral outrage by the minority party: That this ran entirely counter to the "check and balance" that the filibuster was exactly intended for.
Sounds a lot like the so-called "nuclear option" proposed by Senate Republicans when those horrible, evil Democrats were using their filibuster powers to keep judges they believed to be too extreme from reaching the federal bench, right? And the Republicans insisted that this was unprecedented and unfair and were going to use the fact that it only takes a simple majority of the Senate to change Senate rules, and thus, by simple majority they could change the 2/3rds majority required for cloture of a filibuster to a simple majority?
And I said it was a horrible idea, because unfettered access to either side's agenda is a horrible idea, and that the filibuster rule was exactly put into place to PREVENT either side in a two-party system from reaching potentially dictatorial power.
But it isn't that "nuclear option". Fast forward just a few years, and now it isn't "the filibuster was never intended to be used against JUDGES" that the majority (Republicans) are saying, but "the filibuster was never intended to hold up just about every important bill or resolution we bring up" that the majority (Democrats) are saying.
And while I'm a little more sympathetic to the second argument than the first, because it feels like a more abusive use of filibuster than the really very limited use it was getting in the former case, the idea of circumventing that filibuster is just as horrible and I'm just as glad that there is a group of moderate Democrats willing to stand up and say they will vote with the Republicans on any bill that filibuster is blocked on.
The details are a little bit simplistic, here, and it's sort of important that they remain so, or else bogged down in the minutiae we could start arguing the minor and pedantic details of how this case is different than the last, and thus, either justified or horribly worse (depending on which party you identify with).
For example, near as I can tell this time the obscure rule being proposed to shut down the filibuster is that it apparently only takes a simple majority to bring up a bill in filibuster-proof way. I haven't found the details, but it's called the "budget reconciliation process", and it apparently only takes a simple majority to implement. So the Republican tactic was to essentially do away with the filibuster entirely, and the Democratic tactic is to just do away with it on a case-by-case basis. A distinction without a difference.
I wish the children could play nicely together, I really do. It's so much better when they all work together to build a snow man, than when the big kids and little kids separate into groups and begin forming sides and pelting each other with snowballs. But when they decide to go the latter route, we have rules in place to prevent the big kids from just demolishing those pesky little kids, and those rules are important.
It is a good thing that the "nuclear option" was never put into play (although I note that if it had been, the current use of filibuster by the Republicans wouldn't be happening, which should be a really good lesson for the Democrats who are currently in charge: you WILL be the minority again one day, and you REALLY don't want to load this weapon and hand it to the Republicans who will be in power on that day, just as I said to Republicans at the time of that older filibuster conflict). It will be a similar good thing if this rule is never put into action.
It's a lot more frustrating when it is legislation you agree with being blocked, but we defend the use of the weapon against us to preserve it for ourselves when we need it to prevent something we find entirely odious.
LEAVE THE FILIBUSTER ALONE.
And by the way, if you (like many liberal commentators) were outraged when the Republicans wanted to use the "nuclear option" and are now cheering this move by the Democrats, or if you (like many conservative commentators) were touting the "nuclear option" as a great and appropriate way to shut down those upstart Democrats but are now ginning up faux moral "outrage" that Republicans could be treated this way, you need to go away for a while and drink a nice steaming cup of SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE.
