Another Note on the Compromise

Ok, one more thing. This is the question I asked John Podhertz regarding the filibuster:

Wither the principled argument against filibusters? In the scenario you envision, there is no *principled* removal of the filibuster. It becomes entirely the product of political payback. This shifts the terms of the debate. Republicans had been arguing that judicial filibusters were unprecedented, violated Senate tradition, were unconstitutional, and interfered with the power of the presidency. If the Dems renig, it seems to me, that entire case is gone...because the Republicans have *conceded* that judicial filibusters can be conducted (if only in 'extraordinary' circumstances). Then the fight for the 'nuclear' option becomes entirely over whether or not the Dems have broken the deal. How do you make that case to the American people? D.GOOCH