Republicans Will Never Nuke The Filibuster. They’ll Just Ignore It
Thanks, Manchin and Sinema!
New York Times reporter Carl Hulse declared last week, “The filibuster is on life support,” as if the filibuster is an actual person who’s terminally ill. Chris Cillizza, on his YouTube channel, asked, “Is the Senate filibuster on the edge of extinction?” as if the filibuster is a dinosaur (he includes a T.rex emoji).
A couple weeks ago, Republicans, stalwart champions of states’ rights, blocked California’s plan to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035. They did so with a simple majority, after bypassing the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling that the measure was not exempt from the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold.
Hulse writes that “Republicans found a way to maneuver around her, pushing the bill through with a simple majority,” which is a banal way of stating that Republicans pointed and laughed at the parliamentarian before killing the filibuster so that Californians are not denied their god-given freedom to suffocate to death.
The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, is an unelected official with no real power, so bypassing her is easier than opening a childproof container. Back in 2021, MacDonough excluded a minimum wage increase from the stimulus package — a crucial part of President Joe Biden’s plan — because she reasoned it wouldn’t directly affect federal revenue so couldn’t pass through the budget reconciliation process. MacDonough is actually a Democrat but apparently a strict rule follower, so was Biden, who simply expressed his “disappointment” with her ruling — even though she was never elected to anything, least of all the presidency. She doesn’t even have a scepter and robe. Someone shows up to work wearing a robe and holding a scepter, you’ll listen to them … or call the police. It’s a thin line.
Hulse writes:
Republicans can hardly be accused of delivering the blow that sent the filibuster reeling. That punch came from Democrats a dozen years ago, in November 2013. The G.O.P. was blocking Barack Obama’s judicial nominees, so Harry Reid, then the majority leader, orchestrated a series of votes to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for most confirmations.
This is an infuriating yet nonetheless predictable “both sides” account of history from the Times. Republicans abused the filibuster, refused to engage with the Democratic majority, and mostly acted as if Barack Obama wasn’t president. Yet the Democrats are blamed for simply reacting to Republican obstructionism.
Filibuster defenders like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema argued that it forced the majority to seek consensus with the minority and not simply pass extremist legislation or confirm radical judges. However, Republicans under Obama redefined “extremist” and “radical” as basically “not Republican” and “whatever Obama might want, even if we liked it previously.” Good-faith compromise is not demanding that the Democratic majority simply not govern at all. It’s not as if Obama was nominating judges to the left of Castro. Republicans were blocking any Obama nominee, often for absurd or downright petty grounds. So, yes, a reasonable person can damn well accuse Republicans of “delivering the blow that sent the filibuster reeling.”
Conversely, Democrats have used the filibuster against the Republicans’ worst excesses. This obvious difference in approach has not stopped Sinema — the founding, only, and now former leader of the Sinema Party — from calling Democrats hypocrites.
“I remember when Schumer and all the Senate Democrats voted to eliminate the filibuster,” Sinema posted on social media. “(Hint: Jan 19, 2022). Weird how times change in completely, totally, predictably, 100% absolutely expected ways.”
January 19, 2022 was the day Republicans successfully blocked a voting rights bill, one specifically intended to offset voter suppression bills that Republicans were passing at the state level on a party-line vote with a bare majority. The “election integrity” laws were openly based in Donald Trump’s Big Lie that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him. Raphael Warnock delivered a moving Senate floor speech — his first — that argued for removing the filibuster in defense of voting rights. (Watch below.)
“I believe in bipartisanship,” Warnock said in remarks clearly aimed at an obstinate audience of two. “But when it comes to something as fundamental as voting rights, I just have to ask, bipartisanship at what cost? Who is being asked to foot the bill for this bipartisanship, and is liberty itself the cost? I submit that that’s a cost too high, and a bridge too far.”
Sinema obviously disagreed, despite her shallow declaration of friendship with the late John Lewis. On the anniversary of his death in 2021, she wrote, “Our nation lost a civil rights giant one year ago today. John Lewis was a personal hero of mine — a man of principle and courage, who encapsulated all the qualities of a true leader. Rest in power, my dear friend.”
Months later, she helped block the voting rights bill that bore his name, and rather than calling out her Republicans besties for attempting to undo Lewis’s life work, she just keeps mocking Democrats for opposing the filibuster.
My memory is as good as Sinema’s, and I clearly recall shouting at the screen whenever her smug face appeared that Republicans would eliminate the filibuster first chance they got so Democrats should take their best (and perhaps only) chance to secure voting rights and codify abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, both of which Simema claimed to support. Alas, the 40something first-termer valued Senate traditions too much. She probably also appreciated the warm embrace of GOP donors who showered her with contributions as long as she blocked Joe Biden’s agenda.
No thanks to Sinema, the filibuster will meet its inevitable extinction, despite Republican Majority Leader John Thune’s insistence that he’ll preserve it. Hulse suggests that even if Republicans don’t go nuclear, Democrats definitely will: “In the grand tradition of the Senate, the minority party will want to get even at its first opportunity back in the majority.”
That’s pretty to think so, but Democrats vowed consequences when Republicans broke their own made-up BS rule and confirmed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s weeks before the 2020 election. No such consequences actually materialized. In fact, Dick Durbin even kept the goofy blue-slip process, which Republicans mostly ignored when they were in the majority. Republicans and the mainstream media will probably just try to guilt Democrats into restoring the filibuster if they regain control of the Senate. If there is any democracy left to preserve, we should ignore them.
I actually think a filibuster can be useful if it adhered to its original idea—that a minority, if big enough (say, more than 40%) could slow down legislation that needs to be further discussed. You can imagine a crisis which Congress reacts to with haste and poorly considered legislation, and wants to jam through on a party line vote. But if debate is extended for even a little while, the minority can bring attention to unintended consequences of the bill, and get necessary changes. Such a filibuster should (1) have a time limit (say 90 days), (2) apply to all legislation or confirmations, and (3) require actual floor debate about the bill, not just stall tactics.
What we have instead is an abomination. Filibusters only apply to certain legislation with no reasoning behind that (why should it matter if it is related to budgets?), they go indefinitely so they’re essentially a supermajority requirement rather than an extension of debate, and there’s no requirement to actually debate the bill. It is very stupid that Democrats did not make this reform when they had the chance, and you can be sure Republicans will do whatever they want when they’re running the show.
When rules are more important than the needs of the many, you are fighting for power, not people.