Department of Bad Arguments

When I read Michael Gerhardt and Erwin Chemerinksy's pro-filibuster editorial in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, I didn't particularly care that they were being hypocritical. Yesterday, Chemerinksy was outed by the Volokh Conspiracy. It appears Chemerinksy co-authored (he likes working with others) a law review article in 1997 opposing the Senate filibuster. Since then, of course, Republicans have taken over the Presidency and Senate, so the good professor has warmed up to what he once considered outrageous.

I didn't care because the question is which argument is right, not what side Chemerinsky is on today. I also didn't care because the argument they made last Sunday is absurd. Essentially, they prefer a modern procedural rule over the Constitutional duty of "Advice and Consent" the Senate was given by the Founding Fathers.

The only reason the Republicans are fearful of the "nuclear option," which would get rid of this rule that allows 40 Senators to shut down the Senate whenever they please, is that they fear--quite properly--that they may yet again be in the minority. No one can claim either side believes in it as a matter of principle.