I understand somewhat, but also don’t understand. Republican senators don’t want to eliminate it because it’s their only check if the Democrats take control (but not 60% control) later.
But if the Democrats do get a majority, couldn’t they just eliminate the filibuster then by simple majority vote? Or not because (“if we do, it’s our only check if the Republicans take control”)?
Neither party wants to get rid of it because it is the only possible check one party might have when the other party has the trifecta.
In a world where reasonable, responsible adults are elected to office, the Senate is the ballast on legislative and executive power, imposing stability.
In theory, if you can’t get 60% of the Senate to agree with something, maybe that something needs to be improved before enactment.
Even as broken as American politics has been over much of its history…that’s not been a bad idea.
Now that we’re living in the stupidest reality, however…
The problem is that most members of Congress don’t think for themselves anymore. They toe the party line, and their own thoughts are ignored.
I agree, but I’m not certain that abolishing the filibuster would help, given the situation.
True, the government shutdown with its increasingly undesirable consequences would end, but the GOP would gain the ability to run more amok for the next 14 months.
If it was the opposite way, and Republicans were blocking Democrats, would you feel the same? Would you say the Dems would “run amok”?
Yes, absolutely.
I’m not a fan of the Dems in general. I just think that the MAGA-infested GOP is much, much worse.
In my state’s government, if the blue-ward shift I saw in the municipal elections carries over to the state legislative elections next year, I expect the D’s will have sufficient power in the state legislature to run amok, and that is going to suck.
I think MAGA Repubs and the extreme left are equally bad. I don’t like the Democratic party as a whole - I feel like even the moderates try to excuse the extremists.
I supported Nikki Haley in the primaries in 24, and wrote her in for president last November. I felt that she was a candidate who could actually have brought the two sides together, and gotten real collaboration between them.
I really hope she tries again in 2028. She’d be way better than AOC.
Meanwhile, I voted Haley in the primaries, and Oliver in the general election.
I don’t know, from my POV, whether Haley would have been better or worse as a President than Harris would have been. I do think there’s a decent chance Haley might have met the standard of “if they genuinely act in the best interest of the country, they can’t go too far wrong” that I hope for. I’d vote for her again in a 2028 primary over most of the other potential GOP candidates I’m aware of.
As far as voting for Oliver…I’ve been increasingly disturbed by the LP, but in principle, I don’t vote for major party candidates in non-competitive elections due to the concerns I have with the two-party duopolistic structure we have in the US. I’ve tended to vote libertarian, overlooking the wingnuttiness of the party, as on paper they tended to be closest to my philosophy, but with the Mises Caucus ascendant in the LP, I might have to consider a different (and equally futile) protest mechanism.
I’ve always thought that it might also keep the party from having to vote on difficult topics. So for example, Republicans might have to vote on certain Trump priorities that they really don’t want to have to vote on. With the filibuster they never have to. Same thing for the Democrats when Biden was an officer.
This again comes back to my point - politicians can’t think for themselves. They have to follow the party line, and God forbid they should have an opinion that differs from it.
Look at Fetterman - he challenged the Democratic platform, and now the Party is going to get rid of him in the primary. Same thing with Adams in NYC.
Liz Cheney also belongs on the list.
Because change is supposed to be a slow and deliberate process that has broad support. If you eliminate the legislative filibuster, you might as well just eliminate the Senate. (Unpopular opinion: I would instead like an amendment enshrining the legislative filibuster, and at its original 2/3, along with repealing the 17th amendment.)
I think it would be interesting to look at every filibuster that ever occurred, and then ask whether we would be better off if those laws had passed.
Obviously, it’s a bit confusing since we went like 200 years with almost never filibustering and then 15 years of using it everyday.
And doubly confusing now that we are flirting with authoritarianism.
One particular case, for example, is that Congress has been trying to pass bipartisan immigration reform for 20+ years. They have frequently met over the years to compromise on key matters – protecting refugees/children on one side and increasing enforcement on the other. They’ve never clear the filibuster though.
And instead we’ve left 20 years of immigration policy to the presidents, whose executive orders are both partisan and borderline unconstitutional.
Neither party is taking any sort of principled stand on the filibuster. If they needed it gone for something they really wanted to do, it would be gone immediately.
Majority party mostly just puts everything they really want to do into the budget reconciliation process. There isn’t really any limitations on that and it bypasses the filibuster. Outside that the president mostly does whatever they want and they just go along with ever increasing executive overreach.
Filibuster is mostly just cover for not passing things they know there aren’t a lot of good, easy solutions for. And blaming the other party of getting in your way plays pretty well to partisan voters.