By Jim Geraghty
Thursday, August 22, 2019
On the op-ed page of the New York Times, Senate
majority leader Mitch McConnell reminds Democrats that he warned them in
November 2013 that they would regret repealing the filibuster for non-Supreme
Court judicial nominees. Republicans won back control of the Senate in 2014,
and then repealed the exception for Supreme Court nominees. Now, some Democrats
want to eliminate the filibuster entirely if they win a majority in the Senate
in 2020, and McConnell warns they will probably live to regret that decision as
well.
Over at The Atlantic, Ron Brownstein writes, “If
Democrats take back the Senate, preserving the filibuster amounts to providing
the places most resistant of America’s changes a veto over the agenda of the
Democratic coalition based in the places that are most welcoming to them. In a
Senate controlled by Democrats, the filibuster would effectively empower what
America has been over what it is becoming.”
Not only does no Senate majority last forever, since
1980, no party has kept control of the Senate for more than eight consecutive
years. Republicans won their first Senate majority in a generation with
Reagan’s victory, but Democrats won it back in the 1986 elections. Six years
later, the GOP retook control in the 1994 Republican revolution, but shortly
after George W. Bush’s election in 2000, Jim Jeffords switched parties and
shifted control to the Democrats. The GOP won back a majority in 2002 and kept
it until the sweeping Democratic wins in the midterms 2006. This launched a
relatively long stretch of Democratic control until 2014, when the GOP won back
the majority. During this time period, the Republicans have never had more than
55 seats; Democrats topped out at 58 Democrats and two Democrat-affiliated
independents in 2009, until Scott Brown won the special election in
Massachusetts in early 2010. The potential of the filibuster has always
required them to find at least a handful of members of the opposition party to
support big sweeping changes.
In other words, any rule changes your party makes as a
majority will remain in place when you’re in the minority — and rest assured,
someday, your party will be in the minority again. If you change the rules so
that being in the minority just means voting “no” as 51 members of the opposing
party pass their agenda, be prepared to be in the same position when you’re in
the minority again.
McConnell notes that thirteen Democratic “ranking members
on Senate committees have publicly stated that they oppose tampering with the
legislative filibuster.” Jon Tester said getting rid of the filibuster for
judges was the biggest mistake he ever made, and Amy Klobuchar expressed a
desire to bring back the filibuster for judicial nominations. Dick Durbin
lamented, “eliminating the filibuster on the Supreme Court at least, and maybe
the other federal positions, has really created a much more political process.”
But Tester, Klobuchar, and Durbin have been around the
Senate long enough to be in both the majority and the minority, and they can
foresee how miserable life would be in the minority without the filibuster
giving them a chance of blocking legislation they oppose. Apparently a great
number of progressive activists have no such vision or foresight. They either
can’t imagine or just don’t want to think about the day they’ll be back in the
minority again – at a time when their preferred party is in the minority, with
a not-so-easy three or four seats away from a majority (depending upon which
party’s vice president is breaking the ties).
No comments:
Post a Comment