The hypocrisy of the filibuster busters

Efforts to reverse the Senate legislative filibuster are an un-American, unconstitutional, radical game of nationalizing politics by empowering lean and volatile majorities to introduce sweeping generational politics.

After media coverage, you might get the impression that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has a duty to “spread” the Democratic threats of “filibuster reform” – “reform” is the euphemism for liberals, that destroy the longstanding Senate norms – by preemptively adapting to their demands before it even knows what they are.

Few reporters seem to have the slightest bit of curiosity as to why a filibuster emergency did not arise during the Trump administration when the Democrats consistently – even in unprecedented ways – used the parliamentary tool against the president.

Democrats filibustered the GOP as it ran the House, Senate and Presidency; They filibustered a COVID-19 bill and Senator Tim Scott’s Criminal Justice Act, to name a few.

The Senate GOP has had to end the judicial officer nomination debate and break filibuster 314 times during President Donald Trump’s tenure. To put that in perspective, every other president in United States history has received a total of 244 of these roll-call votes on a filibuster.

Democrats say they cannot pass critical laws to “fund new roads” or “extend early voting” or “protect migrant children”. There are no such bills. There are boondoggle voting, immigration, and “infrastructure” bills that are filled with guidelines that shouldn’t concern the federal government.

But if the Democrats want to force states to live under centralized rule, then they should – at least – reach the 60-vote threshold to achieve that.

On the other hand, some issues are clearly a federal concern – for example the appointment of judicial officers.

The Senate only has a simple majority threshold in these cases because former Senator Harry Reid, not McConnell, broke that 60-vote threshold for short-term political gain in 2013 when he thought his party would rule Washington for the foreseeable future.

Democrats can of course correct this huge mistake and re-establish the right threshold. You now have the power to do so.

It has also become popular to claim that McConnell would likely destroy the filibuster if given a chance. Where is the evidence for that? The Republicans had complete control of the government for two years in 2016-17, and McConnell didn’t even threaten to overthrow the legislative filibuster if he could get through all sorts of huge bills.

Democrats, on the other hand, have shown no inclination to operate by one principle in this regard – except perhaps the pursuit of power.

In 2017, 30 Democrats signed a letter from Senator Susan Collins defending the filibuster as an essential tool in maintaining the “deliberate” makeup of the legislature.

Senator Dick Durbin argued in 2018 that the abolition of the filibuster would “mean the end of the Senate”. Now the second highest senator claims that “the filibuster has American democracy under control”. Why? “Senator McConnell taught me I was wrong. He managed to use and abuse the filibuster so many times, and prevented the Senate from pursuing him. “

What the hell is Durbin talking about? Republicans haven’t used the filibuster since 2014. Which of your recent bills was it taken to overcome a filibuster?

As far as we know, the Democrats do not have the 50 votes to raise the national minimum wage. Do you have the votes for the “infrastructure” bill? We do not know it. Do you have the votes to push through a tax hike? If so, you don’t need a filibuster. You can use voting.

Additionally, President Joe Biden takes some supernatural chutzpah to assert that “democracy” is difficult to function less than a week after the Democratic Party signed an almost $ 2 trillion fully partisan wish list.

There is a far better argument that the founders would have withdrawn from the idea that this monstrosity would be rammed by lawmakers without debate or approval from half of the states.

The real problem with the modern Senate, some of us would argue, is not the existence of the filibuster, but the existence of reconciliation – which allows lawmakers to bypass the 60-vote threshold in certain cases. But this debate is being made up by liberals and media for one purpose only: to enable democrats to rule over half of the country without debate or compromise.


The Daily Signal publishes different perspectives. Nothing written here should be construed as reflecting the views of the Heritage Foundation.

Do you have an opinion on this article? To switch off, please send an email [email protected] and we will consider posting your comments in our regular “We Hear You” function.

Related Articles