John Podhoretz details some in the New York Post. Jeremy Lott filibusted Harold Meyerson playing similar games a while back. When the filibuster is the Democrats’ last line of defense against a Republican majority, it is an important safeguard of minority rights. When Republicans use the filibuster to stall liberal legislation, it is an anachronistic and unconscionable assault on majority rule.

In the fullness of time, the party of activist government will benefit more from the elimination of the filibuster and other impediments to legislating than the party of limited government. But Democrats are still being awfully short-sighted in their anti-filibuster talk. When Republicans talked about getting rid of judicial filibusters, they held a 55-45 majority in the Senate, had just won the last election, and a Democratic Senate majority seemed a long way off (even though Democrats wound up retaking the Senate in the following year’s elections).

The Democrats currently cling to a 53-47 Senate majority, lost the last election, and the liberals among them may need to use the filibuster during the next two years even without a Republican majority. Democrats could easily lose the Senate in 2012. Junking the filibuster might make it easier for them to pass legislation like amnesty and Obamacare (though not so long as there is a Republican House). It also makes it easier to repeal Obamacare, pass free-market entitlement reform, and otherwise push through conservative legislation heretofore stymied by the lack of Republican supermajorities.