Filibusters: More Position Switching

More evidence to support my view that a compromise with the Democrats would be foolish. In 1997, one of their legal apologists, Erwin Chemerinsky (Duke), argued in a Stanford Law Review article that the filibuster rule was unconstitutional. Yesterday, he wrote in the L.A. Times that limiting the filibuster for judicial nominees is a "cynical exercise of raw power." Is there any doubt that these thinkers will switch back to their previous position when convenient for them, and provide scholarly justification for doing so?

Patterico’s Pontifications on Filibuster:

"In his L.A. Times op-ed, Chemerinsky decries Republican efforts to change the filibuster rule for judicial nominations. He argues that the Senate should follow its “long-established rules for changing Senate procedure” — and that any attempt to change those rules would not be based on constitutional principle:

The GOP plan to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations would do lasting damage to the Senate. Not only do the Republicans hope to do it without following the long-established rules for changing Senate procedure but, if they’re successful, they would eliminate a key check, guaranteeing their party’s absolute control over Supreme Court appointments.

. . . .

The major problem with the nuclear option is that it is a cynical exercise of raw power and not based on constitutional principle or precedent.

This is stunning hypocrisy, in light of Chemerinsky’s law review article, in which Chemerinsky explicitly encouraged the Senate to embrace a version of the “nuclear option.” The article urged the Senate to change Rule XXII, the rule requiring a two-thirds vote to change the rules for ending filibusters. Chemerinsky argued that Rule XXII is unconstitutional."