John Fetterman

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman is siding with Democrats — at least this week.

There are some issues nailed into the Republican platform, like tax cuts and deregulation. There are some knitted into the fabric of the Democrats, like healthcare and the environment.

But there are others that have less to do with party than they do with math.

Whoever is in the majority hates the filibuster.

The process is a way for senators in the minority to slow the momentum of legislation. It is dramatic but rarely successful.

It generally takes 60 of the Senate’s 100 votes to end a filibuster rather than a simple majority. That nine-vote difference might as well be 99 in a Congress as divided and partisan as today’s.

And while the majority — regardless of party — never wants to deal with it, it also doesn’t want to end it. Why? Because no one stays in power forever. The filibuster hated today could be needed tomorrow.

So when Fetterman wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, pivoting on his previous opposition to filibusters, it grabbed attention.

Like every politician, Fetterman has a situational history of support or opposition to the practice.

This sits apart from recent criticism Fetterman has received about his positions or votes being inconsistent with the Democratic Party — and often more in keeping with the Republican majority or the Trump administration.

The senator has faced repeated speculation about his commitment to the Democratic Party. President Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, aired an interview with Fetterman on her Fox News show Saturday, saying Republicans would welcome him to their side. He demurred.

The current attention on the filibuster is due to its importance regarding the controversial SAVE America Act. Fetterman has said for months that he supports voter ID, but not the SAVE America Act as written.

That has implications not just for the act itself but for the potential control of the legislative chambers after the November elections.

“Upon reflection, the pursuit of those short-term wins clouded the bigger picture and lasting impact of a Senate without the filibuster — a Senate that ignored the voices of the minority and everyday people,” the op-ed stated.

“I now wholeheartedly agree with (former Sen. Joe Manchin’s) assessment that scrapping the filibuster is part of ‘extreme election-year politics that put party power over everything else,’ ” Fetterman wrote.

The question may be less whether the filibuster is a relic of a time of Jimmy Stewart movies and nostalgia for bygone ethics than whether it is still a functional tool in the Senate.

If it only provides the opportunity for the occasional 24-hour campaign commercial staged on the Senate floor, it has outlived its usefulness.

But if it is still a way to make the voices of those with less power heard, Fetterman is right to speak up.