The Scorched-Earth Senate
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
'The legislative filibuster is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House," one of my colleagues said a few years ago. "Without the 60-vote threshold for legislation, the Senate becomes a majoritarian institution, just like the House, much more subject to the winds of short-term electoral change. No senator would like to see that happen."
That was the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, in April 2017.
When President Trump pressed Republicans to kill the filibuster, our Democratic colleagues cried foul. When our Republican majority stood on principle and refused to wreck the rules, our Democratic colleagues happily used the filibuster themselves. In some cases, they blocked legislation like Sen. Tim Scott's police-reform bill. Other times, they simply did what minority parties always do—used the mere existence of the filibuster to influence must-pass legislation long before it got to the floor.
There's so much emphasis on the most extreme bills that either party might pass with a simple majority that people forget the Senate's 60-vote threshold is the only reason that any routine, must-pass legislation is bipartisan when government is united. Big funding deals, appropriation bills, farm bills, highway bills, the defense authorization bill—the 60-vote threshold of Senate Rule 22 backstops all of it.
The Senate Democrats who are pressuring our colleagues from Arizona and West Virginia to reverse their commitments are arguing for a radically less stable and less consensus-driven system of government. Nothing in federal law would ever be settled. That may be what a few liberal activists want, but does anyone believe the American people were voting for an entirely new system of government by electing Joe Biden to the White House, a narrow House majority, and a 50-50 Senate?
Some Democratic senators seem to imagine that breaking the rules on a razor-thin majority would be a tidy-trade-off. Sure, it might damage the institution, but then nothing would stand between them and their entire agenda, a new era of fast-track policy-making. But anyone who really knows the Senate knows that’s not what would happen.
Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like. None of us have served one minute in the Senate that was completely drained of comity and consent. This is an institution that requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon, to proceed with a garden-variety floor speech, to dispense with the reading of lengthy legislative texts, to schedule committee business, to move even uncontroversial nominees at faster than a snail’s pace.
Imagine a world where every single task requires a physical quorum of 51 senators on the floor—and, by the way, the vice president doesn’t count. Everything that Democratic Senates did to Presidents Bush and Trump, everything the Republican Senate did to President Obama, would be child’s play compared with the disaster that Democrats would create for their own priorities, if they broke the Senate. Even the most mundane tasks of our chamber—and therefore of the Biden presidency—would become much harder, not easier, in a postnuclear 50-50 Senate.
If the Democrats break the rules to kill Rule 22 on a 50-50 basis, then we will use every other rule to make tens of millions of Americans’ voices heard. Perhaps the majority would come after the other rules in turn. Perhaps Rule 22 would be only the first of many to fall, until the Senate ceased to be distinct from the House in any respect.
Even so, the process would be long and laborious. This chaos wouldn’t open up an express lane for the Biden presidency to speed into the history books. The Senate would be more like a 100-car pileup—nothing moving as gawkers watch.
And then there’s the small problem that majorities are never permanent. The last time a Democratic majority leader was trying to start a nuclear exchange— Harry Reid in 2013—I offered a warning. I said my colleagues would regret it a lot sooner than they thought. A few years and a few Supreme Court vacancies later, many of our Democratic colleagues admitted publicly that they did.
If the Democrats kill the legislative filibuster, history would repeat itself, but more dramatically. As soon as Republicans wound up back in control, we wouldn’t stop at erasing every liberal change that hurt the country. We’d strengthen America with all kinds of conservative policies with zero input from the other side.
How about a nationwide right-to-work law? Defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities on day one? A whole new era of domestic energy production. Sweeping new protections for conscience and the right to life of the unborn? Concealed-carry reciprocity in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Massive hardening of security on our southern border?
Even now, we saw during amendment votes days ago that certain common-sense Republican positions enjoy more support in the current Senate than some of the Democratic committee chairmen’s priorities—and this is with them in the majority.
The pendulum would swing both ways, and it would swing hard.
My Republican colleagues and I refused to kill the Senate for instant gratification. In 2017 and 2018, a sitting president lobbied me to do exactly what Democrats want to do now. I agreed with many of his policy goals, but I said no. Becoming a U.S. senator comes with higher duties than steamrolling any obstacle to short-term power.
Less than two months ago, two of our Democratic colleagues said they understand that. If they keep their word, we have a bipartisan majority that can put principle first and save the Senate.
Mr. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, is Senate minority leader. This article is adapted from a Tuesday floor speech.
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
The only thing standing in the way of abolishing the filibuster is the pledge made by two moderate democrat Senators. The radical left is applying the pressure on Schumer.
I am not the topic
Good, do it. Fuck the filibuster.
I know, but one can dream.
I second the motion, and I'm contacting various senators to do the same.
Time fo congress to work for the majority of Americans, not the GOPs wealthy oligarchs.
Raphael Warnock was spot on with his comment about Moscow Mitch being so concerned about the minority in the senate while simultaneously ignoring minorities throughout America.
If the Dems get voted out in the midterms, probably in both Houses, you would be OK if the filibuster was gone?
Works for me..... Pubs look to be on the wrong side of popular voter issues and history regarding the recent Covid bill, future Infrastructure Legislation, and the Voter Empowerment Act, so lets get rid of the filibuster and make it so that votes for or against popular bills do end up having consequences at the ballot box.
Cocaine Mitch will carry out what he said as he should. He should figuratively poison the wells, salt the fields, bury the tractor, and burn the barn of senate business if they do.
As I've said through this whole debate - if McConnel and co are going to gridlock the Senate the Dems will have no choice but to change the rules. It's on both sides to work together.
Gridlock means what ? Opposing radical legislation?
Dude, you are making the word “radical” meaningless. If everything is radical, which with how often you use it everything you don’t agree with is it seems, then nothing is.
All your constant use of the word “radical” achieves is making everyone else take you less seriously with each post.
Let me tell you how this is going to go. Pelosi is going to send over a lot of progressive bills which Republican Senators are bound to oppose. Schumer will try to persuade Manchin and Sinema that the only way to get it through is to do away with the filibuster. If he can persuade them with that, then & only then Pelosi will send over H.R. 1.
Not everything is radical.. There have been many bills passed in the House with good bipartisan support that die in the Senate.
I know how it is going to go, the filibuster won’t go anywhere no matter how much I wish it would.
We had 5 covid bills passed with bipartisan support. The most recent one passed without bipartisan support. The reason - it was mostly radical legislation. If anyone wants to dispute that just take a look at the farm provision of that bill:
Section 1005 of the bill offers “socially disadvantaged” farm owners total debt forgiveness of up to hundreds of thousands of no-strings dollars per farmer. But white men needn’t apply. The bill’s definition of “socially disadvantaged,” drawn from elsewhere in federal law, limits aid to racial groups who faced historic discrimination.
Newly elected Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who proposed the measure, says it will make up for years of discrimination. Sorry, senator, but this is discrimination.
Discrimination likewise mars the bill’s aid to restaurants. It grants restaurant owners up to $5 million per facility to offset losses caused by lockdowns. That’s a lifeline for restaurants barely hanging on.
Here’s the hitch: Only women, veterans and owners of “socially and economically disadvantaged” concerns (again, defined racially elsewhere in federal law) may apply during the program’s first three weeks. Most white males go to the back of the line, even if their needs are more pressing.
Treating white male farmers and restaurant owners like second-class citizens violates the principle that we are all equal under the law, a principle guaranteed by the 14 th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Democrats used "reconciliation" or that monstrosity would never have passed.
The reason the last one didn't pass with bipartisan support in the Senate is because it gives the Dems a win. The farm bill issue you listed isn't new they were just repackaged under a new name with additional money because they are hurting the most right now. Farmers got $46.2 billion in agricultural subsidies last year, but 97% went to white farmers. I don't see you complaining about how unfair, or radical, that was.
That depends on how you look at it.
The bill had overwhelming bipartisan support among the voters, including Republican voters.
But no bipartisan support among those elected to support their voters.
77% of voters backed the stimulus plan when its Democratic origin is not disclosed vs. 71% who did so when the Democratic label was included.
59% of GOP voters say they support the $1.9 trillion stimulus package; 53% of GOP voters who were told it was the Democrats’ plan still backed it.
40% of voters say Congress should raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, while 29% prefer an $11-per-hour baseline.
[deleted]
HR 1 has already been sent to the Senate.
You mean like the words "racist" and "supremist" are now meaningless?
The problem is those words, and several others, have been bandied about by the left relentlessly, and with zero proof, but only used to shut someone up. Because of that, those words mean nothing because people have caught on that that is the only reason they are being used.
Get rid of the filibuster, let’s mix things up and make the candidate you vote for actually matter.
Agreed. Let's make votes by senators and representatives have consequences at the ballot box.
I'd just like to watch some of the fascist relics stand up and speak around the clock in the senate enough times to hopefully cull the herd.
As if we needed more proof that the GOP cares more about power and party than the American people.
I don't remember the Turtle bitching when the GOP had control of the senate.
For the record here, Dems are not getting rid of the filibuster. They can't. They can only change the rules on how it's used and how cloture is invoked.
You can do this with pretty much any Democrat, but few rival Obama's partisan hypocrisy.
When Democrats are using the filibuster:
"The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster — if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate — then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse."
When Republicans can use the filibuster, It's a "Jim Crow relic" that should be ended.