The Filibuster and Partisanship

In the wake of the Senate's vote to change internal rules on the filibuster, Republicans are vowing revenge, and The New York Times has expressed fear that partisan disputes will intensify. Both are nonsense.

First, what would revenge look like? The nomination and confirmation of responsible appointees to federal positions? Are we supposed to fear such a thing? Charles Krauthammer seems to think so. He says,

The Democrats will absolutely rue the day, because not only are they going to allow a Republican majority, which will come one day anyway, to get its nominees through, but Chuck Grassley has said that when Republicans come into power, they’re going to include Supreme Court nominees. And that would be a devastating blow to the liberals on the court, and to the liberals in the country.

Say again, why don't we want the elected majority to confirm its nominees? Krauthammer is saying that the Republicans intend to be irresponsible in their nominations just to spite the Democratic Party, then they need to examine their priorities. (I have already said they need to do so, anyway.) What kind of bizarre argument is that?

As for increased partisanship, the filibuster allows a small faction to interfere with the functioning of the system. That's the height of partisanship, and the Times itself published the data to show how bad it already is. Interference with nominations not only has increased steadily, but it's spiked since the election of Obama. How much worse can it get.

I'm glad to see the filibuster reduced. I never liked the thing in the first place. I think it fundamentally violates the principles of Article I section 7 of the Constitution.