The filibuster has provoked its inevitable nay-sayers within the Democratic party. Matt Yglesias claims that we should remove the tactic from Senate rules entirely, despite the fact that this would provoke an avalanche of strict constructionist appointments. I think Matt is forgetting what the filibuster is for. It is a last resort, a means by which the minority can stop an abuse of power by the majority. Bush’s appointments to the bench are just this sort of an abuse of power. The Federalist Society and its adherents, who Bush wants on every court in the land, exist for the sole purpose of giving the Founding Fathers the finger. The reason we have a Constitution is so that some foundation of liberties and rights can be maintained, regardless of public opinion. If this country was a democracy, which thank God it isn’t, then laws banning dissent, authorizing segregation, allowing for indefinite imprisonment without trial, and encouraging torture could be passed without challenge. While all of those laws have been passed (the first as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the second as Jim Crow laws, the last two as executive orders by our current Fearless Leader), all have been challenged, for the most part successfully (the last one still happens, giving the LGF crowd some sadistic pleasure). That is because we have an enforced Constitution, the very concept the Federalist Society and, by association, Bush want to destroy. If this isn’t a circumstance for the exercising of a last resort, I have no idea what is. Alexis de Tocqueville is surely rolling in his grave over this endorsement of mob rule; let’s do him proud, shall we?