Kyrsten Sinema's Filibuster Defense is Factually Untrue
Category: News & Politics
Via: john-russell • 3 years ago • 47 commentsBy: Jonathan Chait (Intelligencer)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Earlier this month, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, speaking to reporters, laid out a thoroughly ahistorical defense of the filibuster. To be fair to Sinema, her initial error, crediting the filibuster to the Founders (who in fact rejected it, only for it to emerge by mistake decades later) is a common one, and she was speaking extemporaneously.
Today, Sinema has a second shot to explain her thinking in a Washington Postop-ed. But her revised filibuster rationale, despite having the benefit of premeditated thought and editing, still relies on utterly false grounds.
Sinema's central argument is captured in the headline "We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster." She warns that a majority-rule Senate would allow Republicans to easily roll back any Democratic policy gains:
And, sometimes, the filibuster, as it's been used in previous Congresses, is needed to protect against attacks on women's health, clean air and water, or aid to children and families in need …
To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to expand health-care access or retirement benefits: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to later see that legislation replaced by legislation dividing Medicaid into block grants, slashing earned Social Security and Medicare benefits, or defunding women's reproductive health services?
To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to empower federal agencies to better protect the environment or strengthen education: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see federal agencies and programs shrunk, starved of resources, or abolished a few years from now?
Almost every specific example she cites here as a possible or actual grounds of defense by the filibuster cannot be protected by the filibuster.
The reason is that the Senate has work-arounds for the filibuster. One is for confirmation of judges or executive-branch appointments. The other is for bills that change taxes and spending. The latter, called budget reconciliation, can be passed with 51 votes.
Almost every program Sinema cites above is a spending program that can be defunded through budget reconciliation: women's health, aid to children and families in need, health care, Medicaid, Medicare, women's reproductive services, funding for federal agencies to protect the environment and education. Several of them have been targeted in budget reconciliation bills.
Budget reconciliation rules do exempt Social Security (an exemption that is itself yet another of the Senate's arcane, idiosyncratic distinctions that serve no logical purpose — why should Social Security alone have a protection that, say, Medicare and Medicaid don't?). Likewise, regulations (such as clean air and water) can't be repealed through budget reconciliation, though their enforcement can be defunded, or simply curtailed through administrative neglect, neither of which is subject to filibustering.
Given that Republicans could roll back any of the vast array of federal programs cherished by Democrats with a majority in both chambers and the presidency, why didn't they do it either of the last two times they enjoyed full control of government?
The answer points to the essential fallacy of Sinema's reasoning. Nearly all those programs are popular — so popular that even Republican voters would blanch at attacks on them. Republicans suffered grievous political damage when they attempted to defund Obamacare. (That episode points to yet another asymmetry of the filibuster — a law that required 60 votes to enact could have been destroyed with a mere 51.)
The federal government is filled with functions that the modern version of the Republican Party would never agree to create. The 1970 Clean Air Act, creating the Environmental Protection Agency, passed both chambers by a cumulative vote of 447-1, an unimaginable outcome today. And yet those programs and agencies generally earn broad public support and prove impossible to uproot.
A system in which both parties can advance their popular beliefs when they have control of government therefore benefits Democrats disproportionately. Republicans may have some measures they could pass in the absence of a filibuster but not otherwise, yet over the long run, Democrats have far more. That is why, when they controlled government, Republicans frankly confessed that filibuster was "what's prevented our country for decades from sliding toward liberalism."
If Republicans have policies they can pass with majorities in both chambers, then they should pass them. If those policies attract broad public legitimacy, they will stay in place. If they are as repellant as Sinema fears, they will be repealed when Democrats have their turn in power. There's simply no reason why preventing Republicans from trying out their preferred policies is so vital that it justifies handicapping Democrats in the same fashion.
The Republican argument for a filibuster is perfectly coherent. Republicans understand full well that they stand to lose over both the short and long run by a system that enables parties in power to make change. The Democratic case for the filibuster is a sloppy mess, which is why advocates like Sinema rely on stating "facts" that simply aren't true.
Tags
Who is online
422 visitors
Hard to believe a sitting senator not only doesnt understand the use of the filibuster, but goes and writes a major op ed in one of the nations top newspapers amplifying her mistake.
She does. She wants to get rid of all exceptions to the filibuster.
In the current situation, keeping the filibuster is a wise choice, as it keeps the Dems from running rough shod over our democracy
Because only Repubs get to run rough shod over our democracy?
Democrats have no defense of wanting to do away with the filibuster today. Not after comments made just a few short years ago:
Biden himself argued against getting rid of the filibuster in 2005 when he was still in the Senate
In the same year Schumer argued against getting rid of the filibuster. Saying it would put the Senate on a precipice of a constitutional crisis. It was a constitutional crisis then but now it is not? Hilarious! Both comments speak to only one thing. The absolute shameless hypocrisy of politicians.
Sinema is spot on in her defense of the filibuster. She is apparently a rare moderate in a sea of extremists. Politicians can not be trusted without the filibuster. Neither side, not at all.
She's made her position clear.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sinema-calls-out-her-democratic-colleagues-on-the-filibuster-%e2%80%94-gently/ar-AALjsJQ?ocid=iehp&li=BBnb7Kz
That was before republicans went over the deep end.
Again...history. Things change.
It was only a few years ago that republicans decided to change the rules of the filibuster, nowadays they consider it sacred.
NO, it was because Democrats were in a minority and had launched an unprecedented filibuster campaign against George Bush nominees.
Again...history. Things change
Yes, Democrats were in a minority. Now they are in a majority.
And yet was not even a match to the bonfire of republican filibusters against Obama.
And under Trump, republicans were a majority which was why they changed the filibuster rules then. What's good for the goose........
Which was not even a match to the nuclear bomb of Democratic filibusters against Trump. And as I recall, unlike Democrats, they didn't filibuster anyone because of their race.
p, republicans were a majority which was why they changed the filibuster rules then
There "change" was to apply the rules Democrats had changed for all other President nominees to Supreme Court nominees as well. It was a tweak to the nuclear bomb Harry Reid detonated.
Bullshit but you keep using that as justification for their hypocrisy.
I'm sure you will
Correct, they "changed" the filibusters rules while they had the majority. Thanks for finally admitting it.
You do realize this information is available on the internet. Don't you? It makes proving false statements very very easy, and yours was a false statement.
That only tells part of the story. If you really want to do a solid analysis of this topic determine how much highly partisan legislation was brought forward vs uses of the filibuster.
I promise you, you will find a connection there. The filibuster is invoked for a reason and an acceleration of non-bipartisan legislation introduced can be a big reason for that.
do realize this information is available on the internet. Don't you?
Sad you fell for Harry Reid's propaganda. You fell for the simple conflation of cloture motions with filibusters, which the Congressional Research Service will tell you is wrong. Unless you believe Harry Reid was filibustering Obama's legislation? If you look into this farther than cutting and pasting pictures, you'd know that Harry Reid would file for cloture before debate even started. He filed for cloture without debate more than twice as much as any leader had ever before. His reason wasn't to stop a filibuster, it was to limit the Senate from debating issues without filibusters and, of course, to create fake filibusters that could be used to fool gullible democrats that their was unprecedented t obstruction.
See how it worked.? Reid creates a "filibuster" that doesn't exist, he cries about obstruction and ignorant democrats claim Obama faced an unprecedented amount of filibusters.
What else is new?
Yeah, the part about comparing Obama to Trump in filibuster attempts. Exactly what we were discussing.
Or I could just stick to the topic.
Yeah, you better run away from it. It destroys your entire narrative.
It destroys your attempted deflection. Speaks directly to the topic.
That's all they have - projection, deflection, and denial. And outright lying.
No it doesn't. Not even close.
Again, no it doesn't. Not in context of my "on topical" response to the filibuster chart YOU introduced. Which stopped your spin in it's tracks.
I see you're still not man enough to admit when you've been bettered.
C'est la vie and SOSDD
So your deflection wasn't destroyed?
What deflection?
And this is all Democrats are suggesting, not getting rid of the filibuster as many dishonest conservatives have claimed. Right now the suggested change that is being supported by many Democrats is simply adding back the requirement that opponents of legislation occupy the floor and make their case against it. That is how a filibuster was used for the vast majority of the time the filibuster rule was in force. This relatively recent change where they no longer required opponents to a bill to occupy the floor of the senate and make their case against it led to a massive increase in the use of filibusters which has led to grinding the legislative process to a veritable stand-still.
Doing away with the "silent filibuster" would not kill the filibuster but put it back to being used less frequently but would still be an available option for any Senator who wanted to object to the passing or even taking a vote on any specific bills.
“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster; you have to do it, what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” President Biden said. “You had to stand up and command the floor, and you had to keep talking.”
I would agree with that, however I would also favor eliminating the filibuster for non-budget effecting bills. If, for the most part, it is not going to cost money, cloture motions should not be allowed.
You really don't understand what a filibuster is or cloture. Cloture is what cuts off debate and ends a filibuster (or if you are Harry Reid, just limits debate on a bill as soon as it's brought to the floor). If there's no cloture, Senators could discuss a topic forever.
Originally when I heard a Democrat had won a Senate seat in Arizona I took it as a sign of progress. But what I have been reading about Krysten Sinema since is that she is on an ego trip, is constantly self-promoting, and has little loyalty to the Democratic Party. A waste of a seat.
Personally I think a Senator who blindly follows party politics over representing the interests of the state they were sent to represent is a waste of a seat. She won her seat because the Arizona Republican Party ran probably the worst candidate they could have for that seat. Her voting record shows she's a moderate and believes in compromise which IMO is part of what should make Washington work for the people.
You must not think much of the Republican members of Congress then. They have been overwhelmingly and almost completely partisan since the first Clinton administration.
I happen to think a lot of elected senators from both fucking sides are a waste of a seat. Unlike you I try not to play partisan politics.
Congratulations then. You helped to put the worst president in the history of this country in office in 2016.
oh man, Thread 4 was just about Krysten Sinema and by extension all members of the Senate. And you had to bring him into it. He really does live in your brain, doesn't he... That's just sad that all you can think of is to use Trump as a comeback for everything.
You've just described approximately 80% of congress
ANOTHER DINO, ALONG WITH MANCHIN.
You can always make some attempt to get around a either a filibuster, or a simple majority. Our entire system of government is a veritable thicket of checks and balances. But you can get around anything with varying degrees of success.
To address an example from the seed:
They are popular, but if you aren’t interested in protecting the environment, a president can always appoint people to the EPA or Interior Department who don’t give a crap about the environment. We have certainly seen that.
I wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster completely, but I would reform it so that it doesn’t remain the absurd and easily imposed roadblock that it has become.
One possibility. Another is to compromise when creating laws so that everybody gets something out of it. For the past 16 years we have had the two parties playing party politics rather than actually governing for the people. Republicans abused the system during the Obama terms and Democrats abused it during the Trump term. Both sides have and continue to abuse it and the end result is that we lose.
It seems to me like it’s all about preventing the other party from being able to say “we solved a problem.” They aren’t working for the country. They just want to win elections, and they can do it by truthfully saying the other party did nothing. They just leave out the part about obstruction.