Ramesh Ponnuru‘s latest article at National Review Online explains why U.S. Senate rules changes would be a bad idea, and not just because it would be easier for simple majorities to approve legislation:
These rules would, as is generally understood, weaken the minority. But what people who have not worked in the Senate may not appreciate is that they would not weaken the minority primarily by changing vote thresholds from super-majority to simple-majority. They would weaken the minority by giving the majority greater control over the Senate calendar.
The minority party in the Senate, by extending debate on some issues, can force the majority to set priorities. The infamous bill to create a government for ?native? Hawaiians wasn?t blocked because it lacked a supermajority; it died because Democrats were not willing to devote time to going through an extended debate over it. Note that this type of leverage depends on the minority?s influence over the calendar in general, not just over the scheduling of one bill. So if time for debate on nominations is cut down, as in the proposals, one effect will be to enable the Senate majority to confirm a lot of additional nominees. But another effect will be to enable it to get a lot of other bills through by adding to the majority?s available time.
