IRONY?

If it's the view of "crackpots" that TPA can't be sustained without some fancy (and presumably unconservative) constitutional theorizing, why isn't it also "crackpot" to argue that using the filibuster in the judicial nominations context violates the clear mandates of Article II, Section 2? Is it worse for the Senate to add a supermajority requirement -- with reference to the constitutionally granted power to set rules for the Senate's own proceedings -- or for it to renounce a supermajority requirement in the name of efficiency? (See also here)

The clear political answer is: both fast track and the criticism of the filibuster serve the aims of the "imperial presidency," and the current president in particular. Fair enough.

(For an earlier post of mine on this issue, see here. Just for the record: I think that both TPA and the filibuster are fine, constitutionally speaking, but I also don't have to defend a conservative constitutional theory.)