Good riddance to the filibuster farce

A “right” is meaningless if it can be abolished when someone actually tries to use it. If Republicans are willing to abolish the right to filibuster Supreme Court nominations so they can force President Trump’s nominees through the Senate, Democrats lose nothing by making them follow through on their threat. Indeed, this “nuclear option” improves the debate over nominations by making them more transparent.

Filibustering against legislation in the Senate is common practice, but filibusters against Supreme Court nominees are extremely rare. Only one nominee — Abe Fortas in 1968 — was actually blocked by a filibuster, and only three nominations since then have faced a cloture vote to end a filibuster: William Rehnquist in 1971 and 1986 and Samuel Alito in 2006.

Since the 1960s, there has been an ideological struggle over the composition of the Supreme Court, but this war has mostly been waged in the shadows. Senators have acquiesced in every nomination that reached the Senate floor except Robert Bork’s in 1987. This def- erence, combined with the Republicans’ willingness to “go nuclear” to force Trump’s nominees through the chamber, means that the minority party is unlikely to have much influence on future nominations, with or without the “right” to filibuster. The Senate is better off without this farce.

The real constraint on nominations lies in the democratic process. Even when nominees say as little as possible about issues or cases, as Neil Gorsuch did, senators know the real question is whether to continue the direction of the Roberts court in striking down campaign- finance laws, granting religious exemptions from regulations to for- profit corporations, restricting abortion, and allowing states free rein to manipulate electoral rules to advantage the party in power.

For moderate or vulnerable senators, such as Lisa Murkowski, R- Alaska, Susan Collins, RMaine, Dean Heller, R- Nev., or Rob Portman, R- Ohio, there might come a time when they fear the political repercussions of supporting nominees who will continue this aggressive and undemocratic legal agenda.