I don't see how that makes the presidential election meaningless. Doesn't it actually make it more meaningful? Do you think that the upcoming election is meaningless in regards to justices? If the Senate and President are from opposing parties then they would have to work together in the same way as the 60 vote rule to get a justice seated. I don't see a difference.
Which is why meaningless was in quotes -- I was referring to your claim that it gained in importance. My issue, how does it make it more meaningful? The President appoints his nominees, just as he always has. The issue here is that the majority in the Senate now has more power -- they are free to accept or reject a justice, or even not hold hearings (based on the Precedents set over the last five years). It isn't just the removal of the filibuster, it is the new ideas that the Senate majority has the right to do what it wants -- whether that is to not hold any hearings on a nominee or, possibly (we'll see what happens) to fast track a nominee.
I find that the republicans tend to nominate people with this philosophy rather than the democrats. I agree this is how it should be but do you think Biden and a democratic senate would nominate someone like this? I don't. I don't see how this changes with a 60 vote threshold.
This idea that Republicans tend to nominate people with this philosophy is Republican propaganda. Republicans have specific views on the Constitution, frequently "originalist" and then act as if that is the only "correct" reading. In truth, there are various ideas on how the Constitution should be interpreted among Constitutional scholars -- and each has ideas supporting it and weaknesses.
Perhaps as an example, when we talk about minority rights, the "originalist" arguments tend to look at the fact that the founders didn't really mean "all people are created equal" as they didn't allow women to have rights in the original Constitution and laws, they allowed slavery, etc. Granted, that is a bit simplistic, but it is a fact that other Constitutional theories allow for how the "world has changed," that women are no longer viewed or limited as they were in the 18th Century, the same with Blacks.
I disagree strongly. Both sides will character assassinate no matter the 60 vote rule or not. That has been demonstrated to be true.
You want the minority party to have an "extra" say and actually thwart the will of the people that elected the senators. If you want a different system then start making a campaign to change the constitution.
They may be that is juts how you look at it, but that is not promised in the constitution. So no one is doing anything unethical or illegal by changing the rules.
Except by "thwart the will of the people that elected the Senators" there are two issues -- first, some of the Senators were elected five years ago -- and the "will of the People" has changed since those Senators were elected. If the entire Senate had been up for reelection in 2018, there is a good chance you'd have a Democratic majority in the Senate -- but because only a third were up for re-election, and the states that had Senate elections, the Republicans remained in control.
Which brings up the next point, the Republican majority in the Senate was elected by a minority of US citizens. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is a bit odd that you don't think the minority should be "heard" in the Senate when, in fact, the Senate "majority" actually represent a minority of Americans.
If we want to talk "will of the people" then the President would, in most cases, more accurately reflect that. Which brings us back to the topic -- if the Senate had acted on Pres. Obama's nominee, I wouldn't have an issue with what they are doing now -- the argument being the President represents the "will of the people." Instead, they didn't act then and are acting now, trying to pretend the Senate (as you alluded to) represents the "will of the people" despite the unique character of the Senate, and how every state (with two Senators) does not have an equal number of Americans, and they were not all picked in recent elections.
As for the "minority" voice in the Senate and the Constitution, let me try something different. In the "originalist" Constitutional argument, if you go back and look, our legislature was largely copied from the British system. There, they have a House of Lords and a House of Commons. The House of Commons was to represent the "commoner," the average joe, and as such the House of Commons is seen to be more variable, to be directly representing the "will of the people," and even more political. This is part of the reason we vote for Representatives every two years, so that they respond to their constituents wants and needs.
By contrast, the Senate, being modeled after the House of Lords, was set up to be a more delibrative body, more serious, and less swayed by the current political fad or trend. Since we didn't have "Lords" in the US, the Founders meant for it to be the "political elite" -- by which was meant the "best" of us; Daniel Webster, John Calhouns, William Clay, etc. It is why Senators were originally appointed by state legislators, again, they idea that it was the "elite" electing the best of them. Granted, it didn't necessarily work out that way, but historically the Senate has tended to be the "Senior Statesmen" of US Politics.
They idea is that Senators were people who put principle over politics. This was much of the reason for the idea of listening to the minority, to the fillibuster. And this is maybe the biggest basis for my objection -- essentially, the Senate is turning into the House. Their election was staggered so that they wouldn't be as influenced by the sways in opinion of the voting public -- the idea that the Senate reflects "the will of the people" was, in many ways, anathema to the Founders. Maybe that gives you a better idea of my objections to what is happening.
