The old guys who were the framers of the constitution, and indeed our Democracy, were you have to admit, pretty saavy individuals. The filibuster was a sort of an ingenious "poison pill" for the protection of the minority, and has been used to the benefit and detriment of the sausage-making operations in congress many times (Hell, even Jimmy Stewart used it in "Mr. Smith"). So to see someone as annoying as George Will warn the AWCB's that screwing with Mother Nature has makes you vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences is pretty intresting.

Actually, some Republican senators' hearts are about as pure as the driven slush after the treatment they dished out to some of President Clinton's judicial nominees. Republicans respond that Democrats opened this front in the political wars with their 1987 defeat of the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. Democrats reply that in 1968 Republicans filibustered Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice. But Republicans say the issue then was not ideology but corruption. And so it goes.
...
In 2003, after many years of stoutly defending the filibuster, this columnist, his reason unhinged by the unconscionable filibuster against Miguel Estrada's confirmation to an appellate court, endorsed changing Senate rules to prevent such things. Now to make amends, herewith a credo:

The filibuster is an important defense of minority rights, enabling democratic government to measure and respect not merely numbers but also intensity in public controversies. Filibusters enable intense minorities to slow the governmental juggernaut. Conservatives, who do not think government is sufficiently inhibited, should cherish this blocking mechanism. And someone should puncture Republicans' current triumphalism by reminding them that someday they will again be in the minority.

Maybe.