The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Reminder Of What Will Happen When The Filibuster Is Gone
Harris says the quiet part out loud.
Today Vice President Harris announced that she would support eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade:
"I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe [v. Wade], and get us back to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom."
Senate Majority Leader Schumer likewise said eliminating the filibuster is "something our caucus will discuss in the next session of Congress." Translation: Democrats will nuke the filibuster if they win the White House and have majorities in both houses.
I agree with the Wall Street Journal that once the filibuster is eliminated for abortion, it will be eliminated for all other legislation.
She's couching this procedural coup as related only to imposing a national abortion law on all 50 states. But anyone paying attention knows that's a ruse. Once the 60-vote filibuster rule ends for one piece of non-budget legislation, it will end for everything.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, recently said he wants to break the filibuster for a national abortion law and pass a bill that would impose California-style voting rules on all 50 states. Good-bye voter identification, and hello nationwide ballot harvesting.
It won't stop there. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says he wants to break the filibuster to restructure the Supreme Court. Sen. Bernie Sanders has recently given up on his former institutional objections and now favors 51 votes to pass his proposals.
Every interest group in the Democratic coalition will demand that its priorities pass with 51 votes too. Think statehood for the District of Columbia. And think Big Labor's PRO Act that would ban right-to-work laws nationwide, among other ideas that would normally require bipartisan majorities to pass the Senate.
This wishlist is not fanciful. Jeff Toobin offered a similar roadmap in 2020.
Once D.C. has statehood, it will become far more difficult for Republicans to obtain a majority in the Senate, and nearly impossible to confirm Republican-nominated judges. And once the lower courts and Supreme Court are packed, there will be no judicial check on whatever a simple majority of Democrats can muster. Within a span of a two years, our country would become nearly unrecognizable. If you think this sort of rapid change is impossible, look at what just happened in Mexico.
This blog is hosted by a non-profit, so I will resist making any sort of political endorsement. Instead, I would urge people who are generally right-of-center to think very carefully about which candidate actually poses the bigger threat to that which they care the most about. I know of several never-Trumpers who today became reluctant-Trumpers. You are not alone.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wow - I’m shocked a law professor who has written trump puff pieces and briefs is on Team Trump
“Once D.C. has statehood, it will become far more difficult for Republicans to obtain a majority in the Senate, and nearly impossible to confirm Republican-nominated judges.”
Only if they insist on continuing to have unpopular policies people don’t like.
“And once the lower courts and Supreme Court are packed, there will be no judicial check on whatever a simple majority of Democrats can muster.”
BUT A DOG CAN’T PLAY BASKETBALL
“Within a span of a two years, our country would become nearly unrecognizable.”
Unrecognizably awesome.
“If think this sort of rapid change is impossible, look at what just happened in Mexico.”
Oh? Mexico, huh? Interesting comparison. No dog-whistles there.
“I know of several never-Trumpers who today became reluctant-Trumpers. You are not alone.”
No you don’t. They were never reluctant. And neither are you.
There may be good arguments against DC statehood, but, "It's unfair that people who disagree with me will get representation because then it'll be harder for my side to prevail in votes" isn't one of them.
TBC, I oppose ending the filibuster, and I think that Dems don't have the votes now and are even less likely to in the next senate. But voting for Trump is not the answer to any question, ever.
"But voting for Trump is not the answer to any question, ever."
I mean ... did Blackman think he was fooling anyone?
And the following question (which answers itself)-
Has Blackman looked at what is proposed to happen if Trump wins?
I think that people are becoming way too zero-sum in politics. The healthy body politic takes it as a given that you create and have rules under the assumption that "the other side" will have power at some point.
He posted this after Trump was shown saying that people who criticize judges and justices that overturned Roe should be jailed. So yeah I’m guessing he has.
What’s more concerning, some unserious, facetious comments during a campaign, or actual prosecutorial abuses targeting political opponents?
What's more concerning: promises to be a dictator, or legitimately prosecuting dangerous criminals who want to be dictators?
I think the proper comparison is, what's more concerning, a blatantly obvious joke about being a dictator that mocked democrats' irresponsible rhetoric, or the presently empowered democrat administration behaving like a dictatorship?
What would happen if President Trump wins reelection? Let's see, a secure border, cheaper energy, prosperity, world peace. And the added benefit of the hopeless primal screams of democrat losers of course.
And Trump will have much better judicial appointments, according to info posted on this blog.
Better everything actually. Well Harris will have better chaos, but higher inflation, open borders and potential WWIII are not probably not good things.
But leftist robots like, Nieporent above, will be happy if Comrades Harris and Walz win.
Moron, I'm a libertarian. I will not be happy if Harris wins; I will be happy if Trump loses.
Why are you attacking Blackman (who is a doofus) if you feel this way?
If you are sincere about that, you should be criticizing people cheering on this idea of abolishing the filibuster. You literally lost Roe because Harry Reid ignored that "the other side" would have power at some point. Mitch McConnell stood next to him and warned him what was eventually going to happen. And when it did, everybody got mad at Trump and his abortion bans, instead of the guy really responsible. Personally I'm not sad that Roe is gone, because it was terrible law and deserved to go, even as I'm pro-choice. Things are already working themselves out.
And now we're at a second fork in the road, and you're mocking Blackman, not the terrible idea he's critiquing.
It's strange that the most zealous (and popular with the base) Democrats are always talking about transformational change, yet when someone like Blackman pushes back on that idea, some people get all defensive and deny that's what's going to happen. Weird. Maybe if they start accomplishing that, there will be election blowback like has been happening on abortion.
What is the solution?
Roll back to where we were prior to Senator Reid mucking it up, sort of like a 'do over' or a 'recharacterization'?
Filibuster worked well for a long time.
Filibuster worked well for a long time.
Well, it did a great job of blocking civil rights legislation. If you think that was good I suppose you like the filibuster.
What else did it do that was wonderful?
It did well in forcing consensus. That is the historical record.
The point: It was a powerful tool, rarely used. It should be returned to that status; powerful, rarely used. Because the Congress can re-learn how to make compromises.
We neither need, nor want, a senate version of the House.
Retaining the filibuster is the lesser of all the evils here.
No, we’re ditching the filibuster first chance we get. Should’ve done it a long time ago. Getting rid of the filibuster benefits Democrats when we control the Senate, and it benefits Democrats when Republicans control the Senate. It would be great if Republicans ever passed some legislation. First of all yay, it’s your job, and second of all you’d finally be held accountable for something. Please, repeal Obamacare and ban abortion nationwide, thereby ensuring Democratic majorities for generations. Republicans’ whole strategy is to whine a lot and then do nothing when in power (because they know they've got nothing more than "concepts of a plan" anyway), and the filibuster is one of the top enablers of that bad behavior.
It's an old old rule: Non-Democrats aren't allowed to talk about what Democrats are going to do, because it hasn't happened. And they're not allowed to talk about what Democrats have already done, because that's history, move on already.
You confuse criticism with censorship.
It won't be censorship until you've packed the Court and overturned Citizens United. THEN it will be censorship.
1. You used present tense above. So yeah, you are taking criticism and pretending it's censorship for the drama.
2. Switching to the future, and then doing a fan fiction is not only a new goalpost, it's just buying fake oppression.
I have concerns about the risks Trump offers to lots of our policies and institutions. I do not write a whole thing of what he's totes gonna do and then post like that's already happened.
You are forever telling us here what we can talk about, despite your lack of power to enforce your demands. That's the sort of thing I meant by "not allowed". Not literally, "will be thrown in jail" not allowed, perpetual whining about goalpost moving and imagining things "not allowed".
I criticize bad posts.
That you think this means I want to silence you says a lot about what you would do with power, and little about me.
You are forever telling us here what we can talk about, despite your lack of power to enforce your demands.
That's called "criticizing." I know, you guys think you should be "allowed" to spout your dumbshit uncontested or else your free speech has been violated, but that's because you're retarded cultists.
The guy who is "really responsible" for Roe being overturned is the guy who appointed the people who overturned Roe. Reid may have made a tactical error — a really obvious one, to be sure — but that did not force Trump to appoint those particular justices.
Reid didn't make a tactical error.
Republicans were repeatedly blocking Obama nominees, including of the NLRB & D.C. Circuit judicial nominees.
The "Gang of 14" purportedly formulated a compromise that would mean only "extraordinary circumstances" would warrant filibusters of nominees. Not quite so in practice.
Filibustering didn't help the Democrats much in the nomination wars. Majority vote confirmations allowed Democrats to fill seats. Republicans did it when they were in power.
Mitch McConnell played hardball. He would probably not have let the Democrats use the filibuster to block nominees during the Trump Administration, even if it was still there.
I think reasonable minds can differ, but I tend to agree with you.
The counterfactual where Reid continues business as usual is nothing we can know with certainty, but I can't imagine it ends with fewer GOP-appointed Justices, nor more moderate ones.
The tactical error was the Dems returning to the blue slip process after the GOP ended it when they were in power. I get the individual Senators may have liked it, but come on!
Yes, the blue slip policy makes some sense, but should not be a total veto. Democrats have been fairly successful in confirming Biden nominees. So, Durbin can cite that.
loki — This is the unhealthy body politic, the one which takes it as a given that rules are for suckers, and institutions are too protected by rules.
With respect and deference for the good lawyers commenting on this blog, I think innate legal conservatism has hampered their insight. They seem to misjudge both what has been going wrong in politics, and even more so, what may be required to stop it.
The Trump immunity decision was at least a halfway commitment by the Supreme Court to join and promote a MAGA attack on American constitutionalism. Whether the Court will quail from that initial commitment, or redouble it, will likely become evident shortly.
If the Court interferes with presentation or publication of Smith's brief in Chutkan's court, that will be a bad sign indeed. It would mean, I think, that having decided to strike at American sovereignty, the Court majority understands it has committed itself to kill it, and thus to enter the contest to replace American joint popular sovereignty with something else.
That seems a baleful prospect, and I dread to think what measures might be called for to prevent it. I think good lawyers commenting on this blog have so long practiced institutionally reliant reasoning, that they recoil even to consider that kind of institutional upheaval.
Those lawyers disappoint me, first by criticizing outlandish judicial decisions as unthinkable while they remain in prospect, and second, and more so, by seeming to step back and hope for the best after such decisions have been announced.
Very soon, this nation may have to call on patriotic lawyers to think less traditionally. They may be required to analyze legal implications of actions taken amidst a chaos of failing institutions, and overt grabs for unappealable power.
I think statehood for certain regions/rearrangeing borders of states/merging into some configuration that is more logical is a worthwhile idea to consider just not only the regions and in ways that benefit Dems which for some reason are the only ones that ever seem to be under consideration.
How ever worthwhile the idea of doing that is, it is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution.
Like that's going to matter once they've packed the Court.
That is not, in fact, "expressly prohibited by" the US constitution. You may be thinking of Article 4, Section 3, but all that says is that this can't happen without the consent of the states involved as well as Congress.
"There may be good arguments against DC statehood."
Try this one, it's unconstitutional.
To make DC a state without a constitutional amendment, they would have to find one or more states willing to permanently cede territory to the federal government to create a new national capitol elsewhere.
US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17:
No state government may exercise any legislative authority over the seat of the seat of the US Government. Washington DC is the current seat of the national government. A state government, even one supposedly limited to the district can not exercise any authority over it as long as DC remains the seat of the US Government.
And moving the seat of the US Government elsewhere only moves the problem that making DC a state is supposed to solve. The new national capitol will quickly attract the same kind of population that the current capitol has. A population that will be as bereft of representation in Congress as the population of the current capitol.
New York City and Philadelphia were the nation's capital before the creation of D.C. States have federal enclaves right now. D.C. can be a state with the federal buildings remaining in federal control.
Given the growth of the U.S., a new capital not the place created before the Louisiana Purchase might be a good idea.
The bigger issue, constitutionally, is the 23rd amendment.
"Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
The proposal is to shrink the District so that it encompasses (in essence) just the Mall, Capitol, White House, and a few other federal grounds. Nobody lives there (except the president and his/her family, I guess). The parts of DC where people actually live would be the new state.
Issue is, that would leave what would essentially be the President and his/her family with 3 electoral votes in the Electoral College, all on their own.
The 23rd Amendment gives Congress the power to decide how to allot the electors. For instance, the electors can be allotted based on the winner of the national popular vote.
Why not retrocede it back to Maryland?
I don’t think either DC or Maryland wants that.
Because that gives away the game. The idea from the Democrats is to reliably add two more Democratic Senators, not to include the people of D.C. in a state for high-minded representation purposes.
"Try this one, it’s unconstitutional."
That's an argument against a specific legal avenue for statehood, not against the idea of statehood.
You can give it back to the state it came from. They they will have representarion. You don’t care about representation. You care about power.
This is just as bad as not wanting statehood because of the exact opposite reason.
As for the filibuster, it was always about giving plausible deniability to the party in power, so they can hot air about policies they’d just as soon not pass, in the cloakrooms, and give negotiating rewards to the opposition for similar reasons.
Sheesh, “oh their honest, honest struggles. Jimmy Stewarts, all!”
Republican policies were very popular until the elites replaced the American people with third worlders.
They're even saying the quiet part out loud now. https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-soros-backed-organizations-leverage-waves-of-new-immigrants-to-sway-elections
That was always the intent. Had you polled the American people in 1964, right before the fatal change, would they have said "Yes, we want to change the demographics of America such that the white population drops from 90% to 60% and many of our cities feel like third world countries?"
Of course not. The whole thing was done through lies and deception. And that's the exact reason Democrats have imported millions in the past 2-3 years. They know they won't be deported, no matter who is elected, and that their progeny will be permanent Democrats.
That's why the Democrats have gotten so insane. Because they have a huge percentage of the vote already in the bag each election. Combine those votes with single women who think abortion and "women's rights" are the most important issue, and it's not hard to see why they can win easily.
The antisemites have been using their Soros dog whistles out loud for a long time. I'm not sure why you're only claiming to notice it now.
Yes. They have been for a while but probably increasing. Just really evil, authoritarian, and anti-human.
Who is this 'they' who are so evil, authoritarian, and inhuman?
Sure sounds like rewarmed bullshit people called Jews nigh on a century ago.
Indeed, asshole.
How else could FDR have been elected four times?
By not being a radical liberal. He was a conservative by today's standards.
Oh yeah, and he sensibly turned away the St. Louis, which was carrying nearly 1000 future Marxists.
"Only if they insist on continuing to have unpopular policies people don’t like."
This is the same why the left-wing commentariat insists the Electoral College system is "biased" against Democrats.
I can't hear the dog whistle, what happened in Mexico?
I have no idea. And Josh probably doesn’t either. He doesn’t want to explain himself he just wants to hint that we’ll be like some “shithole” country if you don’t vote for Trump and let people’s imaginations run wild.
The Nuke-ular option? (ht “the Turtle”) what could go wrong with that? That being said the Fillerbuster was always Bullshit, it’s not in the Constitution, OTOH, having Storm Thurman read the DC phone book (actually he read every states voting laws starting with Alabama all the way to Wyoming) for weeks keeps them from really fucking shit up
Frank
Majority rule in a democracy, like 43 state legislatures - the horror.
When the majority includes the descendants of many immigrants who Americans never wanted, it is horrible.
Look, for most of history, people moved into the American mainstream after two or three generations. Most non-white immigrants who came after 1965 have not. That's why the country is more polarized than ever.
But how many “Real Pit!” Amurican BBQs are shit?? Korean?? Always good, and with a hard body hottie(sometimes even female) greeting you, and as a Cat/Ferrett/Pomeranian “Owner”(they really own you) I don’t care if I was eating Garfield, it’s fucking delicious!
Frank
When the majority includes the descendants of many immigrants who Native Americans never wanted, it is horrible.
FTFY
A supermajority of 60% should be required to pass any legislation. Anything less is likely to oppress the minority.
Doesn't being stuck with whatever laws are in place at the time when that rule comes in also oppress a minority? (Or even a small majority?)
That is certainly an option, but it's not an entirely democratic option.
Suffice it to say, 60% is not the law. Good luck with the amendment.
This reads like it is invetable that Democrats will win the House and Senate into perpetuity. It's nonsense, but election have consequences.
I remember when the comments sections on VC were pretty enlightening and sophisticated.
Now it's no different from your typical Reddit sewage drain.
Be the change you seek in the comentariat.
What do you think of the OP?
MAGA!!1@! (with the greatest reluctance)
Josh is such an embarrassment.
You're not suggesting that stupid, childish, hate-filled, racist, misogynistic, phony, vulgar bullies like Drackman ought to be banned from the VC are you?
Why banned when they can be muted?
that's "Dr" Drackman, unlike Jill Biden I actually be one
Also forgot this part:
“there will be no judicial check on whatever a simple majority of Democrats can muster.”
So is judicial supremacy good now?!
This is why people think you’re an insipid hackish clown, Josh. You make these grandiose claims that you seem to believe make you sound like a bold truth-teller: judicial supremacy is bad! But then you don’t even try to be consistent in any meaningful sense: OMG if Dems win elections and put judges on courts the courts can’t stop their policies and our nation is doomed!
If you’re going to be taken seriously as an academic, you have to at least TRY and be consistent. You don’t even make the effort. You don’t even bother with excuses or sophistry. Just straight up inconsistent positions without reconciling the dissonance.
I owe David Bernstein an apology, I can’t believe I used to think he was the biggest hack in legal academia. You’ve set the standard so high that Bernstein is basically Plato in comparison.
Vox populi vox dei for me, but not for thee.
Josh — real question.
I presume you are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the Senate didn’t always have a routine 60-vote supermajority requirement. For the vast majority of our history, legislation could pass the senate on majority vote. The filibuster existed, but it was difficult and costly which made it a rarely-invoked weapon.
So my question is - do you really think that situation was so horrible? If so, why? If not, why do you believe simple majority voting now will be worse than it was for most of our history?
Because the modern Democrats are worse than any party that has ever existed in the past. they wouldn't have been electable with the demographics as they stood in America for most of her history.
Well yeah, letting the Darkies vote had “consequences”
Not on its own. Prior to 1965, blacks were 11-12% of the population, so their bloc voting couldn't swing elections. Now, blacks, Hispanics and Asians bloc voting alone gives the Democrats 40% of the popular vote. They only need a small percentage of white votes to win.
They only need a small percentage of white votes to win.
So? And why doesn't the GOP try to appeal to minority groups as well? I mean, aside from the difficulty of appealing to them while tolerating where not actively encouraging "decent, law-abiding white folk, just like you".
They have tried for decades. Small government, individual responsibility, and equal treatment before the law doesn't appeal to people with limited abilities and who hold racial grievances and thus want preferences.
But the larger question is why should they have to? Why weren't white Americans entitled to maintain a generally homogeneous population?
Magasoldr, call your office!
"For the vast majority of our history, legislation could pass the senate on majority vote."
If I'm reading this wiki article right, filibusters were always a thing, and in fact cloture didn't arrive until 1917.
It was rarely used, because the senator(s) had to actually stand there and talk, which imposed physical limits, and it blocked all other senate business, so doing it for too long had political costs.
Relatively recent rule changes have made it easier, which seems like a bad idea.
The general notion, that perhaps really contentious issues ought to need a few extra votes seems sound, but making it difficult enough that is is rarely used also seems sound. Perhaps a return to the old rules would be wise.
There is the longtobefree guy who keeps hoping we bring back dueling.
It would be nice, shut up a lot of big mouths, and I’d plug you like a umm what’s the metaphor I’m Um forgetting ?
Or maybe you’d plug me, or I’d be afraid you would and we could discuss the return of the Slaves to Africa(with appropriate compensation of course) over Cigars and Brandy
Frank
Bringing back dueling would be very morally wrong, and something society shouldn’t tolerate. Mostly for the would-be duelers’ own good. Normal people would simply decline duels and keep living while weirdo trad LARPers would accept them to defend their “honor” or whatever. So legalizing it would probably result in the needless deaths of right-wing weirdos.
The current 60 vote threshold for cloture came about in January of 1975 in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon's resignation. Prior to that cloture required two thirds of those present and voting.
As Absaroka observes, the old rules required filibustering Senators to actually hold the floor and talk.
Who controlled the Senate when the old rules were changed?
There were then 61 Democratic Senators.
Correction: there were 61 Democratic Senators after a disputed race in New Hampshire had been rerun, resulting in the election of the 61sr Democrat. At the time of the rules change, there were 60 Democratic Senators.
The Democrats had a filibuster safe majority for about four months (between the time when Al Franken was finally seated in July, and when Scott Brown won the seat left by Ted Kennedy’s death, in November.
Sorry! Thinking about 2009, and the passage of the ACA.
Right - my basic point is that the present routine supermajority requirement bears no resemblance to a ‘filibuster’ as that term is historically understood. Filibusters have always existed but were unpleasant and costly to use. Which, as others have said, seems like a good idea.
True, and I'd support a return to the earlier form of filibuster. But eliminating it will likely have the exact results Josh is discussing, because he's not making any of this up. Democrats actually ARE threatening to do all these things, and the filibuster is the chief obstacle to their doing them.
I’m a liberal, and at one point I thought the way you do. ‘Ooh, if we get rid of the filibuster then people I hate (republicans, in my case) might win power and then use that power to do horrible things.’ But, I came around a long time ago to the idea that that’s really how democracy is supposed to work. Elections have consequences – the majority gets to govern. They do a good job or a bad job. The people render a verdict at the polls. The possibility that a duly-elected majority might do a bad job doesn’t justify crippling the legislature so no one can do anything.
Overall, the so-called filibuster feeds into what i believe is the central political problem of our time: The rise of the presidency as an elected monarchy at the expense of congress’s power and prestige – a phenomenon that’s happening regardless of which party occupies the White House.
"Elections have consequences – the majority gets to govern. They do a good job or a bad job. The people render a verdict at the polls. "
Yes, and that works fine when the majority's idea of governing only involves making changes at the margins, that can be reversed after the next election if the voters turn out not to like them.
It's not such a great defense when parties start getting it into their heads to do drastic and irreversible things before the next election, based on razor thin majorities.
It’s true - a thin legislative majority can institute reforms that are hard to unwind before being thrown out in the next cycle. And those reforms may be bad. But that possibility is preferable to putting all the power in the hands of a President who’s far less accountable to the people than legislators are, which is where we’re headed now.
A consensus should be required to pass legislation, or else the minority is oppressed. All legislation should benefit everyone, no legislation should benefit or burden special interests.
That's impossible. Laws outlawing murder burden serial killers.
A minority imposing its view on the majority, which a supermajority requirement enables, is just as ‘oppressive’ as the other way around.
I'm going with satire.
"Flood the zone with shit."
So many commenters are asking whether Josh, a contributor to Project 2025 and an obvious Trump supporter, thinks he is "fooling" anyone with this post. But the post is hard to take seriously even as an attempt to fool anyone into thinking that a Harris win would pose an existential risk to this country.
No - that's not his purpose here. His purpose here is to troll. It is a deeply unserious post that is designed to enrage some group of commenters he pretends not to read and... well, I'm not sure who else.
Don't pay it any heed. Josh is playing with his crayons. Compliment him for not eating them again and move on.
Notable: We somehow survived 1975's reduction from two-thirds to three-fifths. I expect the Professor would have opposed that change as well.
PS. The Professor fails to mention that the Senate, and only the Senate, makes its rules, not the President.
Notable: Our politics got conspicuously more toxic after the 1975 reduction from two-thirds to three-fifths, because it became easier to do extreme things in Congress.
Once you can do extreme things in Congress with 50 Senators and a VP tiebreaker, our politics will only become more toxic, because every election will be for all the marbles.
But, that's ok, because one of the extreme things eliminating the filibuster will enable is rigging our elections, so the Democrats will be in permanent control.
And people won't be able to SAY that they're extreme things, because Citizens United will have been reversed by a packed Court.
I think there are plenty of other sources for our toxic politics; your posited cause is dubious.
And I’m not sure thing were less toxic in the 1960s.
Or the 1860s!
Except that cloture votes were rare in the 1970s and 80s – because filibusters were rare. Again, for the vast majority of our history legislation passed the senate on simple majority votes.
Use of filibusters increased in the 90s until, around George W. Bush’s first term, congress, the media, and pretty much everyone else decided that the senate had always required a supermajority to pass anything.
I feel like debates about the filibuster usually end with me screaming like Kathy Bates in Misery – “Do you people all have amnesia?? That’s not what happened!!!!!”
You probably don't much like parliamentary systems, then...
Even for Josh, this lack of self-awareness is surprising. Matt 7:3
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader, recently said he wants to break the filibuster for a national abortion law
aka what the Constitution already protects when it is rightly applied
and pass a bill that would impose California-style voting rules on all 50 states. Good-bye voter identification, and hello nationwide ballot harvesting.
Shelby v. Holder: Congress can always update the voting rules.
Republicans: doing so will make us California.
It won't stop there. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse says he wants to break the filibuster to restructure the Supreme Court.
He supports a statutory term limit which would under the proposal he now supports kick in in 2029. That will be open to judicial review. The horror!
Think statehood for the District of Columbia.
Taxation with representation? The horror.
And think Big Labor's PRO Act that would ban right-to-work laws nationwide, among other ideas that would normally require bipartisan majorities to pass the Senate.
The Constitution provides for majority rule. Republicans were fine with packing SCOTUS without Democratic support.
to that which they care the most about
Trump supported insurrection, is a racist who promotes lies and violence against immigrants, is sexual predator, etc.
That's not as important to you as the horrors of D.C. statehood, voting rights, and pro-labor legislation passed by majorities in both houses. Duly noted.
Which insurrection did he support?
January 6, 2021. Look it up. You might actually learn something that will keep you from asking stupid questions.
Don’t feed the trolls.
More of a conspiracy in an "attempt" than "support".
Trump basically cowered in the White House until it became clear it wasn't gonna work.
Then he told everyone to go home, that he loved them, and that he'd pardon them for any potential non-violent prosecution related to the attempted insurrection.
Oh, wait. He didn't actually bother to pardon any of them, did he...
IF the Democrats win the Senate, it will likely be at most with 51/52 (be an upset). I will believe the filibuster is totally gone when I see it.
Not that I think it would be wrong to do so. People keep on telling liberals they don’t like the Constitution. The Constitution provides for majority rule except for limited things. Some extra bottleneck, on top of the multiple ones already there, is not necessary.
Saw this with PPACA. It passed with 60 votes, a majority in the House, and the president, after over a year of negotiation with the Republicans got “we will give you nothing,” and it was supposedly some grave injustice.
(To be clear, Republicans did vote on amendments to the legislation so did take part in the final bill.)
Then, the Democrats passed a rough draft of the legislation since they had 59 votes in the Senate and no Republican even would let it go through again to clean up things. And, one or more people here sanctimoniously said Democrats were at fault for passing poorly written legislation.
The PPACA has 61 amendments in it demanded by Republicans as a condition to vote for it. And they voted against it anyway.
Really? You think anyone believes such a BS argument?
No, there was never any "commitment" by the minority to vote for the final bill if they got the opportunity to offer amendments. That was never a thing.
Unanimous consent agreements to bring a bill onto the floor often offer the minority some number of amendments, to avoid the minority bogging the Senate down with parliamentary procedure. Which can still happen even with a filibuster proof majority. At least that's how it used to work. The old Senate courtesies have pretty much collapsed, with Harry Reid's conduct as majority leader being the final straw. There's a reason the majority leader now files cloture petitions on pretty much every pending vote.
Not what happened.
The ACA was a Republican idea which Republicans voted against, in bad faith.
No, that's just a Democratic talking point. But even if it weren't, as I keep saying, if I suggest we have Rubens for lunch, and you replace the sauerkraut with shit, I'm not obligated to eat a shit sandwich.
Why do you hate Romneycare?
You mean, why do I hate a socialized medicine program passed by Massachusetts Democrats by a veto proof majority and signed by a RINO Governor because vetoing it wouldn't have mattered? Is that a serious question?
I hate the ACA because it was a new entitlement program created off budget by mandating that companies in the private sector implement it as a condition of being permitted to stay in business. it's no different than if you decided to solve the problem of the poor having trouble affording food by mandating that grocery stores give it away below cost to the poor as a condition of being permitted to remain in operation.
Basically a fascist approach to government control of healthcare: Leave the insurance companies nominally in the private sector, while controlling what they were allowed to sell and for how much, to the point where they practically became off budget extensions of the government.
The market distortions were enormous, and it made health insurance much worse for everybody else.
Romney got the idea of Romneycare from that notoriously left-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation.
This is a bit much.
The individual mandate provision and so on was a Republican idea. Other things, including Medicaid expansion, weren't.
Yes, overall, a reasonable compromise should have been possible given ACA itself was a compromise. After all, it required conservative Democrats to sign on.
Republicans refused to do so. "Bipartisanship" was a pipe dream and the path of rejecting something a supermajority of the public wanted.
That's your idea of a reasonable compromise? Both wings of the Democratic party agreed to it?
If you think the Heritage Foundation is a wing of the Democratic Party, you're beyond help.
So if Trump wins and the Republicans win the Senate will those currently supporting ending the filibuster should Harris win and the Democrats control the Senate still support ending the filibuster?
Yes, absolutely. The filibuster–as it is currently used–stops pretty much all laws from being enacted. Of course, the no-govt-is-the-best-govt side thinks this is a feature, and the govt-often/usually-does-good-things side thinks this is a bug.
But we’ve been living with this miserable system for half a century. Why *not* try going back to the older ways? If you want to filibuster, then stand in the fucking Floor and talk till ya drop.
If Trump wins in Nov, AND Republicans win in the Senate, AND Republicans win in the House; you know what that is? It’s a mandate (of sorts). So, let us pass a bunch of laws that we like. If voters don’t like them, then they will vote us out. If Harris wins in Nov (AND Dems win in the Senate and House), then *that’s* also a mandate. Let them pass a bunch of laws that they think will do good for America.
I personally am sick to death of interesting ideas going to die in the Senate. I would like, in my lifetime, to see how the country does with my party passing a bunch of laws. And I’d like to see how we do when the other side passes a bunch of laws. (If both sides had the chance to pass more legislation, isn't it possible that we'd find out that some of them were actually really beneficial?)
"Gosh, stuff is now finally getting accomplished in Congress? Whatever will we do?"
[TL/DR: Blackman’s a hack]
And yet, so many laws are enacted, every year...
Really? Wikipedia lists 82 in two years, which is already not very much. But so many of them are complete BS, like the 250th Anniversary of the United States Marine Corps Commemorative Coin Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_118th_United_States_Congress
The Wiki list of "major legislation" seems about right. It has 17 Acts, 8 of which are appropriations and things related to appropriations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/118th_United_States_Congress#Enacted
For reference, the King's Speech in July included 40 bills that the UK government was proposing to pass in its first year alone. Now that is quite a lot for the UK parliament, so we'll have to see how many they manage, but they'll certainly end up passing more bills than the most recent US Congress did in 2 years.
Really. 82 laws is a fair number, especially given that the 118th Congress isn't over. If you go by the 117th Congress (Which also had the filibuster, and has a full term), you're at 362 different public laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_117th_United_States_Congress
By Contrast, the UK's Parliament passed "just" 57 acts in 2023.
The argument that the filibuster makes it so that Congress "can't pass laws" is entirely bunk.
But highly controversial laws, on the barest of margins? Well....
Yeah, if you count naming post offices and confirmations.
Denying our decades long bear paralysis on policy is a hard lift.
Cute: Pass sixteen hundred page omnibus bills, and then claim nothing's getting done because the number of bills is small.
Those are omnibuses because of the filibuster. Among other things.
The budget is not a good argument for you. But you don’t know or care to educate yourself.
You complain about government disfunction but also think the cause of that disfunction is the way to shrink the budget.
We had regular order budgets for decades co-existing with the filibuster.
The reason we have omnibus bills is because the leadership want to pass crap that could never survive the light of day, so they arrange for a crisis to build, and then shovel everything into a "must pass" garbage heap that can be voted on before people know what's in it.
It has nothing to do with filibusters, it's due to pathological leadership.
To be really succinct: Only madmen attribute changes to things that have remained constant. Filibusters have been around too long to be the actual source of recent problems.
Um, the advent and increase of abuse of the filibuster in budget negotiations over the past couple of decades is not a secret.
We're not putting the norms back in the tube; keeping the old policies that are now degenerate because 'nothing changed' is ignoring recent history that I know you are aware of.
The committees use normal order and pass out the 7 budget bills every year. You can read them on their websites. They contain just about everything in the Ombibus, except earmarks (which do not need an Omnibus to get into the budget)
You're inventing a whole agenda by politicians that does not exist. And you do it by ignoring the headline budget brinksmanship that happens every year and wrecks normal order every year.
That political showmanship is for rubes like you; it is not a plot to give an excuse to pass Omnibus bills.
" The filibuster–as it is currently used–stops pretty much all laws from being enacted."
If only. This is an awful lot of nothing, if you ask me. $6.13T worth of pretty much nothing.
I'm personally sick to death of the idea that a razor thin majority constitutes a "mandate" to do anything but be a caretaker. Save any talk about mandates for when you win by a landslide and end up with a supermajority in Congress.
I don't want to see what this country looks like when they pass a bunch of laws. I want to see what the country would look like if they had done with meddling, and just left us the hell alone for a while.
Come back to me when US political parties figure out how to compromise. I'm all for the idea that 51 votes isn't enough to enact major reforms, but the flipside of that is that 49 votes in the Senate shouldn't entitle a party to simply block everything.
Mart.
You meant, "...but the flipside of that is that **41** votes in the Senate..."
I suspect that a lot of us would like to see a 51 vote threshold for minor legislation, something a bit higher (off the top of my head: 55 votes) for important legislation, and a very high number (maybe, again, this 60 vote threshold) for super-important [e.g., declaring war??] stuff. Of course, the problem would then be trying to get agreement on what was "minor" and what was 'important.' And maybe people would argue that some things are so vital to our country's economic survival [e.g., passing a fucking budget ON TIME each year??], that it should be treated as "minor" for this purpose, in spite of the ridiculously-high dollar amounts.
For those reasons, I don't think having a variable number would be workable. Brett (and others) are arguing that, "Things are working well enough as it is. Better not to change it." I respect that view...and perhaps time would tell us that his more-cautious approach was correct, and it was a bad decision to defang the fillibuster rules. But, on balance, I think the risk is worth it.
What I would suggest is that the majority leaders of the House and the Senate spend November and December after every House election at the White House agreeing a package of legislation for the next two years. If they're all the same party, that should be easy, but often they won't be. And then spend the next 1.5 years passing all those bills, before everyone has to stop working and go back to campaigning.
What I would suggest is a new constitutional amendment that (A) puts in an automatic continuing resolution if the government would shut down, and (B) evicts all members of congress, forcing emergency elections. Probably with a provision (C) that any congressman evicted from office twice in a row in this manner is ineligible for office until after a successful budget has gone through.
This (1) takes away the power of congress-critters to throw a tantrum and shut down the government, and (B) puts real and immediate consequences in play for everyone, not just folks currently up for re-election.
Pipedream, I know, but eh.
You are complaining a person breathes because you have decided they use too much oxygen.
The filibuster has allowed budget brinksmanship a part of normal order. We had to change the rules to allow our nation to never function.
There are reasons to keep the filibuster and reasons to get rid of it.
You are off on an ignorant island that includes neither.
The cynicism is understandable, but think deeper - governmental paralysis has asymmetric support at it's base.
It's silly, since the government is set up to have some stuff it has to do on an annual basis. But the GOP has been all for ignorant support for silly stuff for decades.
Nobody had problems thwarting almost everything Trump wanted to do through normal wrangling. Which was fine! A do nothing government at least isn’t making things worse! Would that inflation had been halted instead of pandered out the door with drool and giggles. Oh man, so much money, imagine the votes we will get!
A do nothing government at least isn’t making things worse!
That depends on how you look at it. If a global pandemic erupts, the baseline should probably some kind of government action, and a government that literally does nothing would be making this worse.
(Philosophically, there's a whole story here about the trolley problem. Action and inaction aren't that different when there's a trolley rolling down a hill regardless.)
Based on results in Sweden, do nothing would have been a huge improvement over lockdowns. Same medical outcomes, only without crashing the economy.
Trump got stuff through. Tax cut springs to mind.
Ignorance and vibes are all an ideologue needs but if you want to be taken seriously you need to know stuff, not just say whatev.
Sure. I’m not sure why MAGA has a hard time wrapping their head around this (just kidding, I know exactly why), but people in favor of democracy are generally in favor of democracy working. If Republicans win enough seats in Congress to pass legislation and a President who will sign it, then – it’ll suck for us, as a country, but that’s how it’s supposed to work. An obscure rule in the Senate shouldn’t give the minority even more power than the Senate is designed to give it.
The truth of the matter, though, is that there will always be both outspoken and quiet supporters of the filibuster, on both sides. Not just because it preserves power for themselves, when they’re not in the majority, but it makes for easy politics when they’re in the majority. The minority won’t let us pass legislation that will make some of the majority’s politically-exposed members vulnerable in their home states! Oh no! Nothing can be done about it! The Democrats were all too happy to have the Republicans to blame for not being able to pass their more aggressive legislation, from 2020-2022. It’ll be the same story if Republicans regain control and slim majorities in Congress. Oh, those nasty Democrats, won’t let us pass a nationwide abortion ban! I guess Trump will just have to enforce the Comstock Act through executive action!
The most important thing to know about the filibuster is that it's a two-handled sword. The majority party tends to disfavor the rule because it hinders their ability to push their agenda forward. The minority party tends to favor the rule for the same reason: it hinders the majority's ability to push it's agenda through. Politicians who know anything about politics other than fund-raising can grasp the idea/reality is that the next election could reverse the composition of the Senate: the down may move up and the up may move down. A newly established majority may feel compelled to reverse their view of the rule--they'll decide they don't like it after all. The newly demoted minority will conversely change their view as well. The result, of course, is that we are forever forced to endure permanent dysfunction in the upper house. If the incoming minority decides to obstructed absolutely everything the Senate majority and/or the White House want to pass, the good ol' filibuster rule is right at hand to make that possible.
The fly in this particular glass of buttermilk, for me, is that both houses of Congress can set their own rules. There is nothing in the Constitution's Articles I and II that prevents the Senate from behaving like a cage fighting venue instead of a rational deliberative body. So the filibuster rule and encourages and nourishes the current condition of hyper-partisanship in the Senate. Nothing can get done. Things fall apart, etc.
The filibuster is of course an extra-Constitutional measure for minoritarian protection, added to the already minoritarian-protective Constitutional structure of government. Thus, the filibuster amounts to adding a new extra-Constitutional lever, to push on the intended Constitutional lever, to double the force of minoritarian protection actually built into the Constitution. Some folks think that's a good thing, other not.
Problem is, the leverage multiplication did not stop there. With the filibuster in place, the Constitutional privilege for the Senate to make its own rules got interpreted to add a third lever to the chain—a practical political power for the Senate Minority Leader to decide unilaterally, on his own say-so, whether the members of his caucus ever get a chance to join members of any other caucus to break a filibuster.
That takes the already-multiplied minoritarian leverage to the point of a legislative veto power wielded by the Senate Minority Leader. It is unsurprising that a process to use one lever, to push on another lever, to multiply essentially four-fold the force of the original minoritarian leverage actually built into the Constitution, has delivered a constitutionally equivocal result. As a practical political matter, the Senate Minority leader wields a legislative veto more arbitrary, and more powerful than that of the President.
For those reluctant to ditch the filibuster, it could be that a procedural rule change to break the power of the Senate Minority Leader to block legislation might be in order. A filibuster rule change to force after some ample time interval a straight-up, roll-call, majority vote, with all senators participating, might seem wise. It would more-closely approach the level of minoritarian protection actually designed into the Constitutional structure of government.
The present situation acts to shield from political accountability all the members of the minority caucus. It steals from those members the greater part of their agency as Senators, and it transfers that power to the Minority Leader. The nation has endured a long experiment with that too-leveraged way of doing legislative business, and it has brought American politics to the brink of catastrophe.
The Minority Leader has no such power that you attribute to him.
Perhaps in lathropland the minority leader does.
A shorter way to frame my comment above is to note that in American politics a minority is always easier to obtain than a majority. So it seems paradoxical that minoritarian power has been so multiplied that the Senate Minority Leader holds an office more politically consequential than that of the Senate Majority Leader.
I take your point, but as a practical matter the minority’s power has to be multiplied to the point where it can still influence the outcome. Otherwise, why bother?
And yes, although rules such as the filibuster aren’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the idea that each brach of government will independently establish its own rules of order most certainly is.
And that’s also why schemes to regulate the order of the Supreme Court are nonsensical. What sort of a court is going to review the supreme court’s rules of order? We don’t have a double-supreme court, we just have the one.
And that’s also why schemes to hold a President’s official acts accountable to the courts are nonsensical in our system. There are multiple, independent branches that have sole authority over their respective powers. You can't use any one of them to deny the powers of the others. They're balanced.
"[...] as a practical matter the minority’s power has to be multiplied to the point where it can still influence the outcome. Otherwise, why bother?"
Well, that gets to the quirks in the American system that pushes us to a two-party system and makes third-parties pointless at the federal level, and made even worse by the rise of partisanship in the last three decades.
Or, to put it another way... if we had less powerful political parties, more representatives were comfortable crossing party lines, and it was easier to get legislation up for a vote without the support the majority leader/speaker of the house, then majority/minority status wouldn't be as important.
But we're in an age of extreme partisanship, so this is what we've got.
DavidM — None of the independent branches have sole authority over anything. The jointly sovereign People have power superior to any of the branches, and unchallengeable discretion to use that power at pleasure.
The People can use their power by Constitutional amendment; they can use it by exercise of the constitutive power in at least 4 ways—by elections, by impeachments, by specifications of qualifications for office; by disqualifications for bad behavior specified in the Constitution; and they can use that power by indictments charging federal crimes. The People remain always at liberty when acting jointly to do anything it pleases them to do, without regard to the Constitution, by any means they can make effective.
In American constitutionalism, the Constitution has never constrained the jointly sovereign People. To insist the contrary is to turn American constitutionalism upside down.
That may not matter much in today's world, which condones oath breaking. In a system which took sworn oaths seriously, it would matter a great deal. The nation began with the latter, and has evolved toward the former, with malign effects you can see in today's politics.
And there you have it, Josh: The three rules of American politics according to Democrats:
1. You’re not allowed to talk about what they threaten to do, they haven’t done that already so you’re making it up.
2. You’re not allowed to talk about what they’ve already done, that’s history, and move on already.
3. “We’re not going to do that, and you deserve it anyway!”
Seriously, warning Democrats about what Republicans would do when in power after they change the rules is utterly futile: They don’t INTEND that Republicans ever be in power. They INTEND to create a one party state, to make the whole country look like California on steroids.
Sure, it hasn’t worked out like that YET, but you can’t dissuade a man from shooting you by telling him if he does that you’ll just shoot him in return when it’s your turn holding the gun. He doesn’t expect you to get a turn, he expects you to die.
Yeah, Brett. You and Blackman are so fucking oppressed it's incredible.
You did not used to whine so much.
The F'ing administration tried to make a literal communist who wanted to nationalize everybody's bank accounts into Comptroller of the Currency! Packing the Court is being seriously discussed. A candidate for President who's got a terrifyingly good chance of getting elected has promised to do everything by executive order if Congress doesn't pass every law she wants, and one of the laws she wants is a national firearms confiscation law.
I'm going to be retiring soon, I wanted a peaceful retirement, I didn't want to retire into a big screen remake of 1984.
Bellmore — Leave your delusions at work, and learn to enjoy gardening while in retirement.
Shorter Bellmore:
Political maneuvering to influence the makeup of the court is normal when Republicans do it, an outrage when some Democrats even mention it.
And the smearing of Omarova continues well past its expiration.
You keep present tense claiming oppression, but when called on it making predictions on how you for sure will be oppressed.
1. Quit with the goalpost switching. You make dramatic claims, you should back them up not retreat to speculative bullshit.
2. And it is of course bullshit. You weren't oppressed under Biden or Obama despite having pegged the meter on Dems evil back then.
Brett, you are as eager for ze camps as Ed is for Civil War 2.
The F’ing administration tried to make a literal communist who wanted to nationalize everybody’s bank accounts into Comptroller of the Currency!
You're talking about an academic proposal made by someone who would have no power to "do communism" anyway.
Packing the Court is being seriously discussed.
This is either a deliberate misrepresentation of what's being "seriously discussed," or an overexaggeration of the seriousness with which any "court packing" proposal is being discussed. In any event, "court packing" isn't in itself an alarming or seriously existential problem, unless what you mean is, "A shoehorned extension of a decades-long conservative majority on the Court - now expanded into a supermajority - might be diluted if a series of unlikely steps happen."
A candidate for President who’s got a terrifyingly good chance of getting elected has promised to do everything by executive order if Congress doesn’t pass every law she wants,...
Are you under the impression that Trump would do things differently?
...and one of the laws she wants is a national firearms confiscation law.
Again, this is a deliberate misrepresentation of what Harris once proposed doing.
Seriously, Brett - this is Dr. Ed-level obfuscation. It shouldn't take this much translation to understand what you're actually running on about. You're speaking a language only other people in your echo chamber can understand.
The MAGA hysteria is really starting to accelerate. Even Brett's de-hinging.
Should be an interesting election!
Seriously, warning Democrats about what Republicans would do when in power after they change the rules is utterly futile
Bellmore — Futile because the entire nation, MAGAs excepted, no longer believes that MAGAs are even slightly institutionalist. The rest learned by experience that whatever institutions get in their way, MAGAs intend to blow up. They will do that no matter what others do. So please, stop trying to gull opponents by implying mutual forbearance could happen, if only the others restrained themselves.
You and your ilk decided you wanted a pitched battle against a majority. If you don't like the way that is going, maybe you should rethink it, and start promoting compromises yourselves.
The basic issue is this.
It’s a change “in the rules” designed to ensure future power remains with the party that makes the changes in the rules. And it doing so, it’s in many ways antithetical to “real democracy”.
Democracy is a fragile system in many ways. The “50%+1” rule can be abused, as once someone hits that “50%+1”, any number of laws can be passed. Including, for example, laws that prevent certain people from voting. This would ensure that the “50%+1” group will never leave power...even if they fell below 50%. There are many other laws that can abuse this system. Because of this abuse, a number of laws and customs have been put in place to limit “Pure democracy.” Constitutional Checks and Balances, legislative customs, split legislatures and branches of government, and more.
When you see a group that wants to change these laws and customs, be wary. Be very wary. Because when they want these “reforms”…what they are seeking is to remove the checks and balances on their power, on them having to ever leave power.
The question is how many checks and balances are necessary. The Senate already favors conservatives by virtue of Wyoming being able to cancel California. With the filibuster, you need two supermajorities to get anything done. You first need the population supermajority of electing the Senate in the first place, followed by the second supermajority of 60 senators to actually pass anything. I'm in favor of protecting minority rights, at least up to a point, but essentially giving them a veto over everything goes well beyond that.
My real objection to the filibuster, even though I understand that it sometimes prevents legislation I don't like from passing, is that I think politicians should be able to keep their promises and if their promises turn out to be bad policy, we'll have another election in two years.
Suppose there had been no filibuster during the Trump years and the GOP had actually been able to repeal Obamacare, social security, and whatever else they actually wanted to do. They would have then had their heads handed to them the following election, and the Democrats would have brought Obamacare and social security back. I think that's the way democracy is supposed to work.
Point of order. Who said a simple majority was ethically sufficient to pass any normal laws at all? It is merely an abstraction of might makes right, and susceptible to demagoguery.
Ethical according to whom, and by what standard?
Humans evolved to live in community, and do not do well living as hermits. That requires that at least some of the time, individual interests have to yield to the best interests of the community. We can quibble about when "some of the time" is, but it would be a quibble over where that line gets drawn and not whether it exists. So your real dispute is with Darwin and human nature. You want to give up the benefits of living in community, fine, but you can't keep community benefits without also agreeing to community obligations.
Who said a simple majority was ethically sufficient to pass any normal laws at all?
Who said a simple minority was ethically sufficient to block any normal law the majority wants to see enacted?
There is nothing inherently bad about passing a law - no reason not passing it should be the default. Besides, it's not a "simple majority" even without the filibuster. The House has to pass it too, and the President usually has to sign it.
There are plenty of roadblocks.
Yeah, "Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner", we've all heard that.
The problem is that it's still better then everything else we've tried.
And can be fixed by having a strong bill of rights that protects the sheep's right to not be eaten. Not by telling the wolves they don't get to decide who their leaders will be or precluding a vote on substantive measures, nor by giving the sheep a veto over everything else the wolves want to do.
Supported, not fixed.
At the end of the day, if the two wolves decide to eat the sheep, the sheep is toast. Things like the Bill of Rights only work so long as the wolves agree it should.
You don't have to ignore the flaws of democracy to think it's the best system we've tried.
Oh, I don't ignore the flaws of democracy. I would wager that I could probably come up with a longer list of them than you could. But I see no evidence that the political minority is any better at setting policy than the majority is.
The political minority can't set new policy though. However, they can (and should) be able to put a brake on new policy, to an extent.
Put it in the Constitution, then.
They did.
Preventing policy is in fact setting policy. We have a policy of no single payer health care even though the majority wants it because the necessary supermajorities necessary to pass it aren’t there.
"Preventing policy is in fact setting policy. "
No it's not.
“The question is how many checks and balances are necessary”
Not sure….how many safety rails are necessary to preserve a free and just democracy? Think of it like a car…you’ve got brakes, you’ve got seat belts, you’ve got airbags, etc...
Seems foolhardy to just “get rid of” seatbelts and say “well, the brakes are enough”
But that’s not what you’re arguing for. You’re arguing for a system under which your side can never lose, and you have no right to guaranteed results.
And that’s really all your side has is increasingly desperately finding creative ways to keep the majority from getting what it wants. Maybe instead you could try running on platforms people actually like.
"But that’s not what you’re arguing for."
But it is what I'm arguing for.
" You’re arguing for a system"
I'm arguing for the same system Kamala Harris supported full heartedly in 2017
Armchair,
It’s a change “in the rules” designed to ensure future power remains with the party that makes the changes in the rules. And it doing so, it’s in many ways antithetical to “real democracy”.
Just like gerrymandering, IOW.
And two senators per state. And the electoral college. Yup, it’s amazing how selective conservatives can be in their taste for democracy.
But it's not an honest argument anyway. If a future Senate decides the filibuster was a good thing after all, they can always bring it back, by simple majority vote. Unlike the electoral college and two senators per state, which we seem permanently stuck with.
Now, those are different items. Those are the types of brakes and limits on the tyranny of the majority. States and the electoral college DON'T CHANGE* (except for new states). They can't be rigged, changed and exploited like the above metrics.
As for the Senate "bringing back" the filibuster... Sure.... After the Democrats in power exploits killing it, the other party will then suddenly say "No, we won't exploit it...we'll put it back in place!" just for the Dems to kill it again when they're in power again?
Don't be absurd.
"Just like gerrymandering, IOW."
Yes...and no.
Yes, gerrymandering helps preserve the current party in power. No, because it's not a change...we've had gerrymandering a long time.
Learn to gaslight, ffs.
You're not supposed to whack the gas on so hard that the house burns down or everybody asphyxiates.
You know....if it's not actually gaslighting, it doesn't look like gaslighting.
It is disappointing that the author doesn't start at the logical beginning one would expect given the positions he publicly claims: the text of the constitution. Based on it, filibusters have always been and are unconstitutional. While the constitution authorizes each house to adopt its own rules, it can't be true those rules are immune from the same judicial constitutional scrutiny as laws passed by the Congress. Consider a senate rule that allowed approval of constitutional amendments by a simple majority, or that said bills to raise revenue could start in the senate. Would any court sustain the result on grounds of the senate's right to adopt rules?
The constitutional text lays out when supermajorities are needed. No statute. much less a rule, can add or subtract from that. To the response that the rule addresses debate, not actual passage of the bill, that is formally true. But precedent has had no trouble looking at substance over form, as for example cases applying rules to primary elections.
None of this even needs to look at the unhappy history of the filibuster - a rule designed to take the least democratic "elected" organ (because of state not people representation) and empower a minority of those to prevent legislation. Historically this was a vehicle to kill bills for civil rights, for many years contrary to the nation's majority will.
Based on it, filibusters have always been and are unconstitutional.
Where does it say that? Because in my constitution it says: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings".
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C2-1/ALDE_00013579/
"Extra-constitutional" would have been more accurate.
For the record, a useful precedent is the US House of Representatives, which used to have its own filibuster and things equivalent to a filibuster, but has mostly done away with them long ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#House_of_Representatives
Part of the lesson is that binning the filibuster has made the House of Representatives weaker relative to the Senate.
A middle path would be nice but I don't see it happening.
For instance, I think home rule, a voting representative in the House, and a supermajority rule of some sort to deal with the possibility of national concerns might address the D.C. situation fairly.
I don't see that happening, even if it did not require a constitutional amendment. Ditto a moderate filibuster, including needing 40 votes to continue, not sixty votes to end, and some time limit. Republicans also used to support voting rights bills.
If Dems make D.C. a “State,” what additional states would Repubs seek to add? East Montana? North New York? Red California? Texas No. 1-5?
I'm not sure why you're talking as if making the states more similar in size would somehow be undemocratic.
I don’t know that it would be undemocratic. The bigger states could be split into smaller ones, for example. I think some on the left would argue that this would be undemocratic. But I’m not sure that it is. Or the smaller states could be combined into larger ones (not that they would actually do that, presumably).
The more similar the states are, in terms of population, the less undemocratic the Senate is.
Leaving the Senate to one side, democracy is best served if the states have boundaries that capture regions that are relatively culturally homogenous. And at the moment that's not the case in many places in the US. You mentioned Red California and Northern New York, those are obvious examples. Boundary changes in eastern Washington and eastern Pennsylvania might also make sense. Alternatively you could imagine Germany-style city-states like New York City or Chicago.
(For context: In Germany the cities of Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremen are Federal States themselves, rather than being part of Brandenburg or Lower Saxony. Other (Federal) countries have such arrangements too, like Brussels in Belgium and Madrid in Spain.)
“similar in size”
“in terms of population”
Ah. I thought you were talking about geographic area.
I agree that jurisdictional boundaries capturing regions that are relatively culturally homogeneous is significant.
Further, democracy is best served if government power authority writ large is maximally decentralized, such that the bulk of it resides in those local jurisdictions, even up to and including the point of sovereignty.
So that would counsel in favor of a return to the original conception of U.S. federalism under the Constitution, where States are sovereign and the General Government is largely limited to dealing with matters of foreign relations, national defense, and administering the free trade pact of interstate commerce.
Merely pushing for a more "proportional" representation, while putting more power in a centralized super-jurisdiction that encompasses and runs roughshod over a great diversity of culturally heterogeneous locales, is a hoodwink. That's working for the very antithesis of self-government. By some twisted logic a global government and global vote might be the most "democratic" thing ever.
But empire and subjugation is the story of human history, with decentralized self-government being a shiny new concept. "We have more people and power, let's rule over these other geographic territories against their will!" is a story as old as history.
I mean, if that's what you're worried about, add a severance clause to your pipe dream and put in a formal method for a state to secede from the union.
Ideally, it would require multiple popular votes spread across multiple presidential elections to ensure the decision is a serious and considered one rather then a flight of passion or bitterness over a single election, but as long as the process is defined and agreed upon ahead of time, we can have secession without civil war.
I don't know about "some on the left", but for myself, my pipedream goes so much further: a semicentennial redrawing of state lines to balance the population of states (this could be done by keeping 50 states and moving lines, or breaking up larger states. It's a pipedream anyway, so I'm totally open to options).
Or hell, just get rid of the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act and (A) dramatically increase the size of the House to bring it the representative/population ratio closer to it's early 1900s value, and (B) let it continue to grow with time.
The second option does have the benefit of not requiring some very dramatic amendments, but I suspect it's as much a pipedream regardless.
Instead of that, what about Make America States Again (MASA) ?
Return the federal government to its original limited role and let people democratically choose the policies they want in their states. Then all this (inevitably dysfunctional and necessarily anti-democratic) federal nonsense won't matter so much.
Under "states rights", I'd be a criminal in Texas (for sodomy) and Virginia (for miscegenation), so I'm not sure you're going to convince me that your pipe dream is better then mine.
Of course, under "no states' rights" could you become a criminal for both things in all states.
We had a Civil War. You lost.
The original role of the states fucking sucked, and resulted in massively less freedom for Americans than you enjoy today.
Ahh yes the all too common GOP song, 'if the Dems do this normal thing, the GOP will abuse the fuck out of it for revenge!'
Since when is making a city into a state a “normal thing”?
Since the city is a District that does not have representation.
Semantics doesn't really get you anywhere.
They could go back to being part of Maryland, if they want. But as you know there’s a reason this was done over 200 years ago, to not have the federal government capitol be located in a state’s jurisdiction. On the other hand they could just downsize D.C. to only include the actual federal buildings, I guess, and cede the rest back to Maryland. There’s really no reason for it to encompass so much extra.
Otherwise, go ahead and propose a Constitutional amendment: https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/dc-statehood-not-without-constitutional-amendment
They don't want.
A DC that is a state wouldn't be the Capital District. It'd just be a state called DC near the Capital. The Capital, Mall, and WH could be the District.
As DMN has pointed out no need for an amendment to do that.
Various law school exam questions suggest that if D.C. were to become a state, it would simply be called "Columbia".
Uh, 7500 BCE?
IOW, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Let's say that the Republicans narrowly take the Senate and Trump is elected. They can abolish the filibuster. Even call that the Kamala Harris Filibuster Abolishment Rule-Change. And then where will KH be?
In California, presumably.
rhetorical question -- noun. a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
Sure, but there's a serious point here. The whole point of populist right-wing politicians like Trump is that they screw the poor to benefit the rich. Kamala Harris will be fine regardless of who's president. The (working) poor, on the other hand?
Logically, to obtain the most advantage, the Repubs should eliminate the filibuster the first chance they get--simply to prevent the Dems from doing it first and obtaining the advantage.
(That is the way they think, isn't it?)
The filibuster --as it exists in the US Senate-- is a pretty big outlier in how legislatures operate.
Pretending that doing away with this abberation is going to somehow cause your every worst feel is laughable.
To be clear, I'm not saying we need to get rid of the filibuster. I'm not taking a position on it at all. I'm just laughing at this apocalyptic talk.
Most Western democracies with a parliamentary system that allows the majority to do as it pleases have not, in fact, descended into police states. And when a majority overreaches, the voters fix it the following election.
Certain actions, such as statehood for D.C., expanding the Supreme Court and granting citizenship to immigrants who entered illegally, may not be that easy to fix.
Ok, so you’d get some policies you don’t like, as would I. There is no right to only have policies you agree with. Nobody wins every time, nor should they.
With the filibuster out of the way maybe they can also pass a "global taxation system."
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/06/24/macron-suggests-international-taxation-system-to-subsidise-green-agenda/
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/09/25/oecd-urges-higher-global-property-environmental-and-wealth-taxes/
The globalists are coming, the globalist are coming!
Haha you’re pants on head crazy if you think that's the sekret plan. Of the globalists. Who aren't the Jews, it's different OK just all the same tropes.
"Why Democracy is Bad", by Josh Blackman...
It's a Senate rule. The Senate can pass its own rules, and the Senate can rescind its own rules. By--guess what--a majority vote.
If super-majority voting on legislation is really that important, put it in the Constitution.