David Brooks "Grows" into a Wuss

Must be awfully lonely to be the token conservative on The Times' op-ed page. Peter Augustine Lawler isn't sympathetic to David Brooks' toadying to the Left:

Clearly the constitutional principle that governs the two houses of Congress is majority rule. The two houses are supposed to check each other, and in turn be checked by the other two branches of government. There's no constitutional foundation for the Senate's perversely building yet another counter-majoritarian check into its internal structure. In truth, there's always been something vaguely but insistently unconstitutional about the filibuster. Liberals used to know this quite well back in the days when it was understood to be a perverse mechanism used by Southern racists to block civil-rights legislation favored by most members of Congress and most Americans. What did Martin Luther King Jr., another authority appealed to by Brooks, think about the filibuster?

Foul!

Don't go resorting to historical precedent and logic when clearly this is about the FEELINGS of the Democrats, who through no fault of their own can't get a majority of Americans to buy their silliness any longer.