Why we need the filibuster –

The framers intended for our U.S. Constitution to be the upper chamber and more deliberative body. Until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913, two senators from each state were appointed either by their legislature or governor and not popularly elected. I would not turn that clock back, but on some more recent changes in Senate rules, I think some permanent harm has been done.

With the occasional exception, prior to the confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, it was not unusual to see U.S. Supreme Court nominees receive confirmation votes of 70, 80, or even 90 votes in favor, regardless of the party in power and political leanings of the nominee.

It was also more customary when the vote threshold for successful confirmation was higher than the current simple majority (51 senators) to see nominations withdrawn when it became clear that any prospective nominee could not engender the support of a clear majority of the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee or the Senate floor. This tended to bring about the confirmation of more centrist and apolitical judges on our highest court.

During 2013, and early in the second term of President Barack Obama, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, led efforts to abolish the filibuster for the U.S. Senate confirmation of presidential cabinet nominees and federal judges, to a simple majority of half the Senate, plus one. That threshold had been 60 votes by Senate rules.

Early in his first term, Obama had a bullet proof 60-vote-plus majority in the U.S. Senate, as well as an overwhelming majority in the U.S. House. During the devastating mid-term elections of 2010, in what was seen somewhat as a referendum on the Affordable Care Act, Obama, and the Democratic Party lost their majorities in the U.S. House and Senate.

Reid was frustrated by Republican senators then bottling up Obama Cabinet nominees with filibusters during his second term, so he lowered the vote and debate threshold on all Cabinet nominees and federal judicial appointments to 51 votes, with the intention of putting several progressives eventually on the U.S. Supreme Court as well as filling the President’s Cabinet and sub-cabinet appointments during his second term.

Obama would famously leave hundreds of federal judicial posts open, all to later be filled by a Republican U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) when the majority changed, and now with that much lower confirmation vote threshold—three Supreme Court Justices anyone?

Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives which often proposes legislation based on the latest headline or public opinion poll, the U.S. Senate is intended to have more senior statesmen and women, often with lengthy prior elective office experience, service in the U.S. House, back in their home state or in the executive branch.

As stated here previously, I am pro-choice. I am not a woman, and I cannot entirely appreciate the feelings I might have if any government entity told me what I can or cannot do with my own body, but the recent decision by the Supremes did not end, nor make abortion illegal, however, it did return regulation and that authority…