A real talking filibuster is rare enough that it deserves plaudits, even if it’s curly-haired Rand Paul doing the blabbing.
Last night and into this morning it was Jeff Merkley of Oregon’s turn regarding the nomination of conservative avatar Neil Gorsuch, much to the chagrin of Ruth Marcus, whose well-modulated plea for sanity includes a reference to Anton Chekhov, a writer she has not read, otherwise she wouldn’t be alluding to the gun cliché. Charles Pierce pulls out his hair:
Again, I ask: precisely what “tactical advantage” worthy of the name are the Democrats giving up here? If they strike the deal that Fred’s people want them to strike, retaining this vague “tactical advantage,” they will get in return two things: 1) a completely worthless promise from Mitch McConnell whom, in this context, they should not trust as far as they can throw the Capitol dome, and 2) the “retention” of their right to filibuster the next genius produced by Heritage and The Federalist Society as long as they pinky-swear not to exercise that right. This is the kind of thinking that makes me wonder if the WaPo editorial board has been drunk or asleep since the election of Bill Clinton.
As I wrote on Monday, refuse to confirm Neil Gorsuch.