No Downside to the Filibuster at All, Republicans?
By Andrew Zuelke
Chairman, Constitution Party of Wisconsin
We are now coming out of the longest government “shutdown” in history. The good news is, social media is exposing just how many people could work but refuse to. People honestly believe as one person said, “It is the responsibility of taxpayers to feed my kids.” The bad news is, those who are productive in our society, including the military and air traffic workers, are not getting paid. It also reveals that our federal government is involved in way more than it should be. All this because of the filibuster.
Trailer screenshot, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
We have been told that the filibuster is needed, that it forces the two parties to work together in the Senate, getting votes from the other party, because the majority party will need sixty votes, not just a simple majority, to get things done. Then again, if both Democrats and Republicans had been obeying the written (enumerated) US Constitution all these decades, it would not matter which party was in the majority because they could only vote on certain things, just like at your workplace, you are bound by the company rule book. You cannot just do whatever you want, even if you are the longest-serving, most reliable, hardest-working employee that company ever had.
What good does it do to give the Republicans a numerical majority in the Senate if they are going to keep the filibuster? The GOP’s Senate majority is thin to begin with, so if they need so many votes from the Democrats to get things done, what was the point of conservative voters giving the GOP Senate control in the first place?
The Nuclear Option
Recently, House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about President Trump’s call to use the “nuclear option” to get rid of the filibuster. Johnson said that they have traditionally seen the filibuster as a safeguard. GOP Senators said it “holds us back from the Democrat’s worst impulses.” Johnson asked, “What would Democrats do if they had no filibuster impediment, no speed bump at all? They’ve already told us. They would pack the Supreme Court, go from nine to thirteen or fifteen or seventeen or however many liberals they could pack on the Court. You would have D.C. or Puerto Rico be made into states, which would give four extra senators there in the count, and make us (Republicans) a permanent minority.” Set aside that Congress cannot just “make states” without the people having a say, but let us continue. Johnson added, “You would see massive restrictions of the 2nd Amendment, second amendment rights, you would see them (Democrats) federalize elections, so they could take over and manipulate things in the red states. There are a lot of abuses that could come.”
Here is the flaw in this argument. Republicans are assuming that if they keep the filibuster while they are in power, Democrats will do the same whenever they take the majority. If it were simple for the GOP majority to eliminate the filibuster, it would be simple for the Democrats, too. Democrats in power will not keep the filibuster around to hinder their ability to push through what they want. The restraint We the People will have on a Democrat Senate majority – besides holding both parties to voting on only what the Constitution allows – is that Democrats always, always go too far, promoting radical legislation for things most Americans would never support (transgenders in women’s locker rooms and sports, voting rights for illegal immigrants, D.C. statehood, federal investigations and arrests of angry parents and political opponents, universal basic income, etc.) and within a few years, Americans would vote them right back out of power.
Badly Needed?
The Constitution allows for both the House and Senate to choose their own rules. I am not debating that.
As I have asked before, if the filibuster is such a good thing to force the parties to work together and restrain the majority party so they do not steamroll over the minority party:
- Why doesn’t the House of Representatives adopt their own version of the filibuster? Are Republicans saying there is no heated division or discord in the House? Yes, I know both chambers are different.
- Why did the GOP get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, go to just a simple majority vote in the Senate to confirm them? Could it be that the GOP knew that if they kept a sixty-vote majority, they would never get their nominees approved for the high court (i.e. – could not get things done)? So, apparently, the filibuster is “badly needed” to check the majority party, except for judicial nominees?
A Filibuster-Proof Majority
Also, with the filibuster, if the GOP in the majority cannot do what their candidates promised they would do when on the campaign trail, Republican senators can say, “Well, we couldn’t get enough Democrats to help us pass this legislation. We couldn’t get sixty votes. What do you expect us to do?”
How convenient.
Think back, did you hear any GOP senate candidate in 2024 in your state saying at a campaign stop to voters, “Remember, it’s not enough to get us a simple majority. You must turn out at the polls to get our party a filibuster-proof majority.”
Speaker of the House Johnson,
United States Congress, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
No, Republicans will never say that when campaigning because they will come across as ungrateful and demanding.
Speaker Johnson said: “They (Democrats) keep saying Republicans are in charge of the government. We aren’t. Not in the Senate. Sixty votes control the senate, not a bare majority.” Johnson and other Republicans place the burden of getting a filibuster-proof majority on conservative and independent voters who already gave the GOP majority control of the House, Senate, and White House simultaneously.
Republicans make it sound as though there are only upsides to the filibuster, but fail to mention the filibuster also gives the minority party veto power over their majority, such as the preventing of the continuing resolution from being passed in the Senate and having been signed by President Trump by now.
So, Republicans, are you saying to the voters who helped you retake the Senate that needing sixty votes, not just a 50+1 majority, to get things done is not a downside at all?
Listen to this blog post as an audio file below.