raveneye

It's worth pointing out here that the Republican position is that the filibuster is justified during debates on legislative bills, but is not justified during debates on judge appointments.

That's exactly the reverse of my position. I believe that the filibuster could easily be eliminated for legislation without any compromise of checks and balances, because a bad law can always be repealed. But the filibuster is important part of the system of checks and balances for judge appointments, because these last for life.

The fact that the Republican opposition to the filibuster is limited to judicial appointments alone obviously suggests pure cynical political motivation (I know, big surprise . . . ). But I'm open-minded; if anybody knows of a well-reasoned Republican argument from the standpoint of Constitutional theory why judicial appointments should be more immune from this kind of check than legislative projects, I'd like to hear it.

But from my point of view, this is exactly the opposite from common sense.