FH Buckley, Foundation Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School, claims Republicans should want to get rid of the Senate’s filibuster. After all, the filibuster, he claims in purple prose

makes it harder to get laws enacted, but it also makes them harder to repeal. With all the noxious laws on the books, Republicans should be the party of repeal.
Getting legislation passed or repealed in America is like waiting for three cherries to line up in a slot machine.

Then he blows up his own argument, and I appreciate his assist.

the filibuster, which since 1975 has permitted 41 senators to block a vote on most legislation.

Irony abounds. Buckley wants the filibuster removed because the thing makes it so hard to rescind noxious (or no longer useful, I add) laws.

In a nutshell: Buckley’s “most legislation” that was filibuster-blocked would have included a plethora of additional noxious laws.

Too, Conservatives, and most Republicans, favor smaller government over larger. How much larger would Government be today if that “most legislation” since 1975 had been enacted?

Like all tools, filibuster can be misused. Like all tools, the filibuster is a net good despite its occasional misuse.

It’s Senator Mark Kelly (D, AZ), this time.

I’ll look at any proposal [filibuster reform proposal] and evaluate it, not based on what’s in the best interest of just Democrats, but what’s in the best interest of Democrats, Republicans, the country, and Arizona.

Notice that. His first “best interest” criterion is what’s best for Party—which he emphasized: not…just Democrats, but what’s in the best interest of Democrats…. His second criterion, cynically, is the other party.

What’s good for our nation and for his Arizona constituents are last in his list of who matters.