I guess I don't get it. Why would the party in power have LESS power if we do away with the filibuster?
It's not even a real filibuster anymore. I might actually be for keeping it if it went back to its original form. As it is now, all the other party has to do is threaten to use it and there are NO consequences. What kind of rule is that and how can anyone defend it? I don't think it will expend much political capital at all to do away with such a meaningless rule. I think that what Specter proposed regarding time limits on debate over judical nominees is a reasonable replacement for the filibustering rule but I don't see why we can't go forward with something like that without him in the catbird's seat.