Jamelle Bouie: What can we accomplish without ending the filibuster?

[sharedvalues]

Jamelle Bouie, new (amazing) NYT editorial writer:

The Administration You Save May Be Your Own

Democratic candidates for the 2020 nomination must come out against the filibuster.

Almost none of the Democratic senators running for president want to abolish the filibuster.

“We should not be doing anything to mess with the strength of the filibuster,” says Cory Booker.

“Having just lived through being in the minority and how destructive the 51-vote threshold has been for Supreme Court justices, I just want to think long and hard about it,” says Kirsten Gillibrand.

Bernie Sanders says he’s “not crazy about getting rid of the filibuster.” Kamala Harris says she’s “conflicted.” Only Elizabeth Warren has expressed any openness to killing it and moving the Senate to simple majority rule. “All the options are on the table,” she told the hosts of Pod Save America last week. “That’s how we gotta do this.”

It’s easy to understand their reticence. Without the legislative filibuster to constrain them, Republicans would have repealed the Affordable Care Act. And with the judicial filibuster, Democrats might have kept Trump’s most objectionable nominees off the federal bench, Supreme Court included.

To take these victories as reason to keep the filibuster is to mistake the consolation prize for the first place trophy. Progressives have occasionally used the filibuster for their own ends, but for most of its modern history it has been a tool of reactionary obstruction. Whatever protection it provides — supermajority votes may give a conservative Supreme Court pause before striking down progressive legislation — is outweighed by the incredible burden it places on governance and the ways in which it damages democratic accountability from the public’s point of view. Ending the filibuster comes with risks, but those pale in comparison to the damage it will do to a future Democratic presidency, should the party win the White House and the Senate in 2020.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/opinion/senate-filibuster.html

Also

But the men who structured the Senate didn’t envision a filibuster or supermajority requirement. Indeed, they were quite wary of such requirements, which they blamed for the disorder of American government under the Articles of Confederation. “If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority,” wrote Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 22, then “the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority.” This dynamic would “give a tone to the national proceedings,” resulting in “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.”

[denverbill]

1. I'm a little disappointed that Bernie isn't in favor of it.

Personally, I think it's the worst thing that's happened to the US government since it's inception.

It used to be a delaying tactic. Senators had to stand and continuously speak about why they were opposing something. They inevitably had to give up and allow a vote. Now they just have to say they are filibustering and it's a done deal.

Without the current filibuster we would have had a public option for Obamacare. It required Joe Lieberman to agree and he refused.

No liberal agenda item has been accomplished under the current filibuster but Republickers seem to have no problem passing their shit with 51 votes.

[sharedvalues]

2. Exactly!