Mitch McConnell wrote an op-ed in the NYT about a week ago in which he argued that: (a) while the filibuster isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it is an implicit part of it; (b) the Democrats have been the aggressors on Senate procedure, not him; and (c) they had best beware, because what goes around comes around. Is he right?
On (a) and (b), not really. There are plenty of checks and balances already built into the Constitution, and the Founders never discussed the filibuster, so the notion that it is an integral part of the system is unfounded. Mitch also doesn’t give himself nearly enough credit for being an aggressor on Senate procedure, as Merrick Garland would be happy to tell you. On (c), however, he is unquestionably correct. If the filibuster is eliminated, and the GOP ever wins control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, God help us all.
In the final analysis, that is the only good reason to keep the filibuster. Its critics have never presented a convincing rebuttal; they appear to believe that the combination of demographic change and constant fighting will guarantee a progressive majority in the country, which is a doubtful proposition at best, at least for the next ten years or so.