Democrats Are About to Rediscover the Value of the Filibuster
Rep. Pramila Jayapal perfectly demonstrates the shamelessness of those who support ending the filibuster.
Three years ago, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D–Wash.) and nearly 100 of her House colleagues signed a letter urging top Democrats in the Senate to take radical action.
"This is an existential moment for our country," Jayapal and the other House Democrats wrote. "We cannot let a procedural tool that can be abolished stand in the way of justice, prosperity, and equity."
That procedural tool? The filibuster, which requires 60 voters for the Senate to pass most legislation—except for judicial nominations and some budget bills. The filibuster rule, those House Democrats argued in 2021, was preventing Congress from "advancing critical legislation that can meet the needs of the people we represent."
It's a good thing the Senate Democrats didn't listen.
In the aftermath of last week's election, Republicans appear poised to have full control of the federal government starting in January. (Control of the House remains uncertain, but a slim GOP majority seems likely even though 16 races remain uncalled as of Tuesday morning.)
Asked Tuesday whether she would still support ending the filibuster in this new political dynamic, Jayapal gave the obvious answer in a bit of an unexpected way.
"Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the [GOP] has the trifecta? No," Jayapal said, according to HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery. "But had we had the trifecta, I would have been."
Give her some points for honesty, I guess.
But this sort of cynical opportunism is why the filibuster's days might be numbered. On both sides of the aisle, there is a worrying tendency to see anything that checks the power of a congressional majority (or a chief executive) as a problem to be solved, rather than a necessary limitation on the raw power of democracy. Those who take a more measured view of things—like Sens. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D–Ariz.), who played big roles in preserving the filibuster in the early days of the Biden administration—are heading for the door.
The uncertainty about who will take up their mantle makes it more essential than ever to keep this in mind: There is no world in which abolishing the filibuster makes it easier to pass the good laws without also making it easier to pass the bad laws—and that's true no matter how you'd personally identify what counts as "good" or "bad."
Furthermore, once the filibuster is gone, it will be gone. There's no such thing as a one-time elimination of the filibuster to just do a special thing. In the final stages of the campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris suggested that the Senate should get rid of the filibuster in order to pass protections for abortion rights. Other Democrats have called for ending the filibuster to restructure the Supreme Court. This is not realistic. There either is a filibuster rule or there isn't one, because (like all Senate rules) it is only as strong as the members' willingness to support it.
Democrats don't have to look back far into history to see how getting rid of the legislative filibuster would work out. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–Nev.) abolished the filibuster for lower-court judicial nominees, ostensibly to allow Democrats to confirm more of then-President Barack Obama's picks for the federal bench.
How did that work out? President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate installed nearly as many federal judges in four years as Trump's predecessor did in eight—causing endless howls from liberals about how the conservatives had reshaped the courts.
If only someone would have warned them that no one wins when you abolish the filibuster.
As that example from a decade ago makes clear, abolishing the filibuster is a particularly foolish thing for Democrats to do. Fair or not, it's undeniable that the Senate's structure is tilted in Republicans' favor. Why would a party already fighting an uphill battle for the majority want to do away with one of the most important institutional protections for the Senate's minority party?
It only makes sense if you're unable to understand that there will be another election in two years, and that no political majority is permanent. Or if, like Jayapal, you're utterly shameless.
