Restore the Filibuster (with Conditions)

US Senator Henry Clay (center) filibusters

Senate Republicans are debating whether to reinstate the filibuster to the
minority caucus over non-SCOTUS federal appointments when the GOP senators take
the majority next year.

One Townhall.com commentator, Hewell Hewitt, who was likely smacking his
head figuratively, commented:

The Senate GOP
will debate restoring the filibuster today, a move which, if
agreed to, will firmly hang a "kick me" sign on their collective
rear-end.

He demanded a GOP caucus of mature strength and, with unified, bold moves to
demarcate not clear distinctions between the two parties, with a ready
willingness to work with the President, provided that the chief executive abide
by their lead.

However, would reinstating the recently undone filibuster rules turn out as
a craven act of political compromise? By itself, yes. With strings attached,
not at all.

The Republican majority could also invest this new power not just to
spotlight judicial abuse, but enact long-term policies which would cripple the
illiberal, progressive judicial activism which has poisoned the federal court
system into hyperpartisan, extralegal policy making.

Matt
Vespa reported on the inside baseball of this issue:

Republicans on the other side of the debate, however, warn that if the
GOP adopts the change, it could lead to further cuts to minority rights in the
Senate going forward.

“Any diminution of the right to filibuster a nominee means someday
there’s a greater chance of getting rid of the legislative filibusters. Once
you go down that road the next step is to get rid of the filibuster for
legislation,” said one Senate GOP aide.

There is a great deal of concern about the role of minority rights in the US
Senate. Never designed as a populist body, the upper chamber was meant to cool
of the partisan nature of the House of Representatives, and force deliberation
on all legislative matters. Even Alexander Hamilton, himself a hot-head of
brazen political ambition, reconciled New York and later Virginia voters to
accept the Constitution because of the deliberate nature of the upper body.

Mr. Smith Filibusters in Washington

Instead of reviewing the reintroduction of the filibuster from a stark
"yes or no" perspective, Republican lawmakers can present conditions
which will brandish their conservative credentials, solidify their base,
demonstrate them as willing participants in full-involvement republicanism, and
also expose the biting demagoguery of the now Democratic minority. Potential
reforms attached to reinstatement of the filibuster would also engage the
Republican Party as the mature political body ready to attack the deeper
problem: the rank politicization of the federal judiciary.

1. Provide a slate of conservative judicial nominees to fill in key
vacancies in the federal court system. "We will let you block future
nominees, but these candidates must go in or out with an up or down vote."
The minority can grumble, vote No, but the GOP's preferred candidates will
receive their appointments.

2. Establish clear filibuster parameters for future blocking efforts, with
safeguards to prevent another majority from tampering with them. Left and
right, grassroots and Establishment, despite the phone practice of US Senators’
phoning in their efforts to block bills and nominees without standing in the
chamber. Other underground maneuvers like "blue papers" permit
home-state senators to block nominees without consideration. A filibuster must
be a physical act, a
la Rand Paul via Obama's nominee for CIA Director. With this reform,
possible Presidential candidates like Ted Cruz as well as Paul can highlight
their conservative credentials and  hone
their celebrity for the 2016 Republican nomination.

US Senator Rand Paul filibuster (March, 2013)

3. Tie limits on the authority of federal judges to reject or accept federal
lawsuits, depending on their merit. Some constitutional scholars have argued
that the United States Supreme Court should not possess the power of judicial
review in the first place, while other lawmakers have contended that the
Supreme Court should not be the final arbiter on deeply scientific as well as
moral questions, such as the origins of life, and terms of viability for an unborn
child.

4. Offer a constitutional amendment to remove life-time appointments of
federal judges. Perhaps those judicial officers should be subject to vote by
the majority of legislators within their respective federal districts or
circuits. This reform would bolster federalism, a strong suit for Republicans
and their party, which now dominated seventy-percent of the states'
legislatures and governorships.

5. Introduce the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, which has required US
Senators to posture for the popular vote every six years, when they should be
answering to the state legislatures in the first place. Granted, CA's junior US
Senator Barbara Boxer would rethink retirement, since she would not need (to
amass) a massive warchest, but the posturing of heady legislators looking for
an easy reelection path would diminish.

These proposed rider-reforms would 
restore filibuster, but strengthen the checks and balances originally
conceived by the Framers, enshrining liberty, expanding individual and state
sovereignty, while diminishing the influence of the federal government in our
daily lives.

The US Senate Republican Majority may restore the filibuster with any or all
of these conditions. If the Democratic minority says "No", they will
be the anti-liberty, anti-state sovereignty obstructionists. And Republicans
will win the acclimation and support of an otherwise frustrated conservative
base.