When
Democrats last had the majority and proposed blowing up the Senate, I gave a
series of speeches explaining how the Father of the Constitution, James
Madison, intended for the Senate to be a deliberative body, a break on the hot
passions of the House.
I
repeated my deeply held opposition to gutting the Senate even when my party
took control of all three branches, and it would have been politically
expedient in the short run.
President
Trump and many in my party’s grassroots wanted to overcome Democrats’ use of
the cloture rule to block our agenda, but I spoke out strongly against it.
In
2017, over half of current Democrat senators signed a letter calling for
preservation of the current rules for considering legislation despite the use
of the nuclear option for nominees.
Remember,
the nuclear option is a tactic Democrats used to break the rules to change the
rules on cloture for nominations.
I
agree with President Biden’s position in 2005. Reflecting an understanding of
the role of the Senate as envisioned by James Madison, then-Senator Biden said,
“That’s the reason we have the rule! So when one party controls all levers of
government, one man or woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and resist
the passions of the moment.”
Even
Senator Schumer said at that time gutting the cloture rule would be a “doomsday
for democracy.”
Now
Senator Schumer wants that doomsday.
Senator
Durbin hit the nail on the head as recently as 2018 saying it “would be the end
of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our
Founding Fathers.” I agreed then and I agree now.
Now
the shoe is on the other foot, and Democrats have changed their position, many
not for the first time.
Senator
Durbin has now joined the crusade of his Democrat predecessor, Stephen Douglas
of Illinois.
Douglas
is more famous for debating Abraham Lincoln on the issue of slavery, but
Douglas also proposed a Senate rule change allowing a narrow majority to force
a final vote on bills.
Hypocrisy
is not rare in politics, but the fact that Democrat leaders switch principles
on such a consequential matter whenever Senate control flips is particularly
glaring.
The
Party of Jim Crow, which made liberal use of the so called “filibuster” just
over a year ago to block Republicans’ agenda, are now saying, falsely, it is a
relic of Jim Crow.
I
do not see how they can look voters in the eye with no sign of embarrassment.
I
do not understand why the media isn’t roasting them for this hypocritical power
grab.
I
would also like to address a misconception.
The
cloture motion requires 60 votes to bring consideration of legislation to
finality. Just because it can be used to block legislation, does not mean it
always equals a filibuster.
Cloture
cuts off not just debate, but amendments. Voting for cloture is saying that the
Senate has voted on enough amendments.
Senators
who have amendments important to their states they still want to offer must
vote against cloture to preserve their right.
Debate
and amendments are a hallmark of democracy, not an obstacle to be swept aside
in pursuit of a short-term partisan agenda.
When
Democrats last controlled the Senate with 60 votes and thereafter, amendment
votes became rare. Even rank and file Democrats lost opportunities to represent
their states.
Also,
many people confuse debate over the filibuster with talking nonstop to delay.
That’s
a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
filibuster. It has nothing to do with cloture.
People
who talk about returning to the so-called “talking filibuster” are confusing
two different Senate rules, both called a filibuster.
Senators
have never had to talk until they dropped to preserve their right to amend
bills.
So,
the “talking filibuster” rhetoric is nonsense.
Democrats
have convinced themselves, or at least their activist base, falsely, that our
democracy is in crisis. So it is absurd to say only one party, unilateral
governance can save democracy.
But,
once an exception is made to the right of all senators to debate and amend
legislation, there will be no going back.
