Remember, the filibuster still applies right now to normal legislation and to Supreme Court nominations. It’s been nuked only with respect to other presidential appointments, including lower-court appointments. That being so, there are three reasons for McConnell to bring it back.
Sigh. Only three, AP? Usually, when you engage in this sort of analysis, you need an squid-like number of hands – “one the third hand, on the gripping hand, on the tenth hand,” until everything dissolves in an inky cloud of options and obfuscations.
How about this: Remove the filibuster entirely. It is an artifact of political operators, not of the Constitution. And Congress doesn’t need “more restraint.” The Framers deliberately designed it to be the most powerful, by far, of the three branches of government.
The notion that Congress should to make rules to “restrain itself” is, at bottom, an argument that Congress should not exist – because if doing less is desirable, doing nothing at all is most desirable.
If history has taught us anything, it is that (aside from remedying a few evils like slavery that the Framers were aware of, but were ultimately unable to properly address) most alterations in the government designed by the Framers and the original Constitution have not worked out well for America as a whole.
Especially pernicious has been the weakening, over time, of the superior relationship between the Congress and the Executive, a long project embarked upon by Progressives starting with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, greatly advanced by FDR, and currently epitomized by the progressive (and likely Marxist) Barack Obama.
We’ve now reach a point that the Framers feared most: the supremacy of the Executive, personified in the person of the President, who functions as the effective tyrant of the branches.
If we need to enforce restraint on any branch of government, it would be on the bloated, out of control, rogue branch over which men like Barack Obama now preside.