Read on Twitter
This op-ed is a good roadmap laying out the relatively limited arguments that remain for defenders of the filibuster. It's worth taking a minute to break them down. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/512512-unintended-consequences-of-killing-the-filibuster
First there's a statement that eliminating the filibuster will create more gridlock and partisanship. No evidence is provided nor is any attempt made to address the body of work showing the opposite is true: the filibuster contributes to partisan gridlock. https://www.legbranch.org/2018-9-12-how-filibustering-and-strategic-parties-contribute-to-gridlock/
Then the piece argues the rules should not bear the sin of their prior use. But the filibuster was *only* used to block civil rights during the Jim Crow era; no other issue was repeatedly stopped by filibusters. There's a reason white supremacists found the filibuster so useful.
The filibuster was forged by reactionary minorities of white conservatives to impose their will on the majority when the march of change threatened their power. Is every filibuster racist? No. Does the filibuster's primary purpose help decipher who it benefits today? Absolutely.
Quotes from Framers are used to imply more than they say. Remember that the Framers created a Senate where the majority ruled, with rules to cut off debate when it became obstructionist. The minority protections they designed were far more limited than filibuster defenders imply.
Threading this reply from the great Congressional scholar Steven Smith, whose work on the filibuster is foundational. https://twitter.com/ProfStevenSmith/status/1296100359761539079?s=20
This circularity is unaddressed: President Obama called for nuking the filibuster if Congress cannot restore the Voting Rights Act. To be sure, there is broad agreement the Congress should "revitalize" the VRA. But how is that to happen if it is being blocked by the filibuster?
There is the point that control swings back and if Democrats nuke the filibuster, Republicans will pass bad things. Perhaps. But the filibuster *overwhelmingly* benefits conservatives at the expense of liberals, up to the present day. It's not a remotely close call. Moreover...
When Republicans enjoyed unified control under Trump, Senate Dems waged the fewest legislative filibusters in more than a decade (via Bipartisan Policy Center). Republicans failed to pass much legislation but it was not primarily because of the filibuster. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/congress/
One reason Rs failed to pass more laws was not the filibuster but that they just couldn't get 50 votes for much, let alone 60. They didn't ignore Trump's calls to go nuclear on principle, there just wasn't much they could've passed if they had. Good read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/why-senate-republicans-arent-listening-to-trumps-pleas-to-go-nuclear/2018/04/03/b87c9342-3756-11e8-8fd2-49fe3c675a89_story.html
The solution - "generate political pressure" - ignores the reality of an era dominated by polarization and negative partisanship. Republicans benefit by blocking Dems. If Dems win big in November, the GOP's path to midterm gains in 2022 will be obstruction, just like 2009-10.
On the Framers: their use in this context can be misleading. For every quote warning of majority tyranny there are more calling majority rule the first principle of a Republic. Jefferson is quoted in tbe piece; he called majority rule "the natural law of every assembly of men.â
Jefferson also wrote a manual for Congressional procedure stating: âno one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously.â The Federalist Papers are full of warnings against letting a minority block the majority. There's a lot!
Side note to say, the author of the op-ed, Richard Arenberg, co-authored a book that is worth reading. It's the best single defense of the filibuster. https://bookshop.org/books/defending-the-filibuster-revised-and-updated-edition-the-soul-of-the-senate-9780253016270/9780253016270
The idea that the filibuster led to bipartisan accomplishments like Medicare is a red herring. Medicare was bottled up in committee by Wilbur Mills until Dems' landslide 1964 victory made clear it was passing no matter what. The filibuster was immaterial. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/medicare-made
On Social Security, the filibuster allowed southern white supremacists to cut millions of black Americans out of the program, exacerbating the racial wealth gap that exists to this day. It was not a force for good. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/when-affirmative-action-was-white-uncivil-rights.html
Filibuster defenses tend to share common flaws: they punt on the question of how to pass solutions to urgent issues in an era of polarization and negative partisanship if the filibuster remains. And they indulge in a lot of arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny. Buyer beware.
Threading this important point https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1296152968006373377?s=20
My publisher would be upset with me if I didn't do this so if you're interested in this debate, please consider pre-ordering my book which covers how white supremacists forged the filibuster, how it broke the modern Senate & what can be done to fix it. 
https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1289262753622814727?s=20
https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1289262753622814727?s=20
