Come together

A few days ago I complained about the logic of the filibuster:

I was not one of those who opposed the cynical Republican attempt to enact the "nuclear option" a few years ago and get rid of the filibuster, because despite Republican motivation at the time, the filibuster is just not fair. It is at best an anachronism of an age where Senators took their role in legislating, rather than partisanship, seriously. There is no constitutional requirement for a 60% majority in the Senate, and the sooner we can get rid of it, the better.

Today, Matt Yglesias, responding to Richard Posner's statement that "the filibuster is an incomprehensible device of government," also goes there:

On the filibuster, Posner gets at the crucial point. Even without a supermajority rule in the Senate, the United States would still feature many more veto points at which legislation can be blocked (you need concurrent majorities in two legislative houses, plus at least two committees, plus the assent of the president) than most advanced democracies. There’s no systematic reason to think that this feature of our system is conducive to the public interest over the long term.I think much of the liberal commentariat boxed themselves in on this issue, going to a full court press against the Republicans when they threatened the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster a few years ago. The right answer, of course, was to let them do it. But then those two phony moderates John McCain and Joe Lieberman, along with their Gang of 14, had to go and exercise their consistently foolhardy, but media praiseworthy, Broderesque substanceless bipartisanship, and now we are where we are.