GOP threatens to kill the filibuster? Go for it!


Senate Republicans have fallen short of the 60 votes needed to bring up the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. In part because of honest concern about Gorsuch, and in part out of lingering anger that Republicans refused to even consider President Obama’s nomination for that open seat, Senate Democrats are refusing to play along.

That’s good. It’s good because the concerns about Gorsuch are valid, and good because the Democrats have every right to be angry and to make that anger felt.

Of course, if the threatened Democratic filibuster holds as expected, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear that he will respond by invoking the so-called “nuclear option,” calling for a rules vote that would abolish the requirement of 60 votes for Supreme Court nominations. Republicans would then be able to confirm Gorsuch on a simple majority vote.

Good again.

Good because the Republicans did win the election, and with it the right to nominate and confirm Supreme Court justices. And good because the filibuster has become a major, almost insurmountable impediment to action that needs to be removed not just in confirmation votes but in legislative votes as well.

That suggestion angers Senate traditionalists for whom the filibuster is a reminder of an earlier era, of a time when the Senate actually did operate more or less as a collegial gentlemen’s club. In those less partisan times, when media oversight was less intense, senators could quietly cut deals with the other party without being accused of partisan betrayal. Under those circumstances, in that system, the filibuster was a rarely used tool, employed only in extreme circumstances.

However, those conditions no longer exist, and no amount of nostalgia will bring them back. In these more partisan times, the pressure to filibuster has become too intense for minority parties to withstand, and the filibuster itself has become too easy to wield as a weapon. The modern Senate has in effect become a legislative body where 60 votes are required to do almost anything, and it was not designed to function that way.

Remember, the filibuster has no standing in the Constitution. It is a rule that the Senate imposes on itself, and in recent decades it has functioned to frustrate rather than advance constitutional goals, making Congress increasingly impotent. There’s a reason why, in designing Congress, the Founding Fathers required supermajorities only in very limited circumstances.

James Madison, writing in Federalist Papers #58, explained that reason clearly:

“In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: The power would be transferred to the minority.”

Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist Papers #75, made the point as well:

“… all provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions, have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government, and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority”

At the moment, of course, that minority happens to be Democratic. Eliminating the filibuster now would empower the ruling Republicans and make it more difficult to block conservative legislative priorities that I personally would find objectionable. But the larger issue is that for the good of the country and the rejuvenation of democracy, we need a functional Congress and we currently don’t have one.

Kill the filibuster.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Readers Write: Dec. 15

Salt, sand great for roads but bad for cars Wow! Our first decent snowfall in years. The state and city seem to have responded pretty well to mitigating the snow and ice conditions on our roads. One thing I learned from my winters in Maine is when the road crews start putting down brine, rock salt and sand, while they do a great job of providing traction...
Opinion:
Opinion:

(YouTube) I swear, these people have lost their ever-lovin’ minds. They have snipped their last tethers to reality and gone floating off into a fantasy land of their own creation. Take our own U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, Republican from Georgia. In a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Collins joined his GOP colleagues...
Opinion: What should we fight for?

“We will never accept Russia’s occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea,” declaimed Rex Tillerson last week in Vienna. “Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns full control of the peninsula to Ukraine.” Tillerson’s principled rejection of the seizure of land by military force &mdash...
COMMENTARY: Alabama, sweet home of progress

Alabama. Who knew it would become one of the most beautiful words in American politics? It turns out there could have been no better place to test the limits of indecency, the limits of Trumpism, the limits of Republican partisanship and, yes, the limits of racial subjugation. If the angry ideology of the far right cannot make it in one of our most...
Opinion: Can the GOP avoid more losses like Alabama next year?

Now we know what it takes for the Republicans to lose in a deep-red state like Alabama. Start with a special election. Add an interim replacement whose appointment came amid somewhat sketchy circumstances. Mix in a now-standard fight between the establishment and the self-proclaimed “swamp drainers.” Let the two factions go to a run-off...
More Stories