The faulty logic of defending the filibuster

The rule is arbitrary, impedes self-government, and could cost the Democrats their majority

In his newsletter yesterday, New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie (one of the good ones) shared a 2010 Connecticut Law Review article by a political scientist named Josh Chafetz in which he that the Senate filibuster is actually unconstitutional because it impedes the people from meaningfully engaging in self-government. In both their views, the supermajority requirement for the ordinary business of lawmaking gives too much power to the political minority, violating the democratic promises of the Constitution. Chafetz writes:

The mere fact that our Constitution has some anti-majoritarian elements should not serve as a bootstrap by which any anti-majoritarian device is made constitutionally legitimate. … Rather than use some deviations from majoritarianism to justify still others, we should take note of the essential popular sovereignty foundations of our Constitution and insist that, in such a polity, minority veto cannot be piled atop minority veto indefinitely. The Constit…